SBE Agenda for January 2016 - State Board of Education (CA Dept of Education)

SBE Agenda for January 2016 - State Board of Education (CA Dept of Education):

SBE Agenda for January 2016

Agenda for the California State Board of Education (SBE) meeting on January 13-14, 2016.

State Board Members

• Michael W. Kirst, President
• Ilene W. Straus, Vice President
• Sue Burr
• Bruce Holaday
• Feliza I. Ortiz-Licon
• Patricia A. Rucker
• Niki Sandoval
• Ting L. Sun
• Trish Williams
• Michael S. McFarland, Student Member

Secretary & Executive Officer

• Hon. Tom Torlakson

Executive Director

• Karen Stapf Walters

Schedule of Meeting	Location
Wednesday, January 13, 2016 8:30 a.m. Pacific Time ± STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Public Session. Public Session, adjourn to Closed Session – IF NECESSARY.	California Department of Education 1430 N Street, Room 1101 Sacramento, California 95814 916-319-0827

Please see the detailed agenda for more information about the items to be considered and acted upon. The public is welcome.

Schedule of Meeting	Location
Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:30 a.m. Pacific Time ± STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION The Closed Session will take place at approximately 8:30a.m. (The Public may not attend.)	California Department of Education 1430 N Street, Room 1101  Sacramento, California 95814  916-319-0827

The Closed Session (1) may commence earlier than 8:30 a.m.; (2) may begin at 8:30a.m., be recessed, and then be reconvened later in the day; or (3) may commence later than 8:30 a.m.

CLOSED SESSION AGENDA

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Under Government Code sections 11126(e)(1) and (e)(2)(A), the State Board of Education hereby provides public notice that some or all of the pending litigation follows will be considered and acted upon in closed session:

• California School Boards Association, et al. v. California State Board of Education and Aspire Public Schools, Inc.,Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. 07353566, CA Ct. of Appeal, 1st Dist., Case No. A122485, CA Supreme Court, Case No. S186129
• Cruz et al. v. State of California, State Board of Education, State Department of Education, Tom Torlakson et al.,Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG14727139
• D.J. et al. v. State of California, California Department of Education, Tom Torlakson, the State Board of Education,Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BS142775,CA Ct. of Appeal, 2nd Dist., Case No. B260075
• Emma C., et al. v. Delaine Eastin, et al., USDC (No.Dist.CA), Case No. C-96-4179
• Options for Youth, Burbank, Inc., San Gabriel, Inc. Upland, Inc. and Victor Valley, Notice of Appeal Before the Education Audit Appeals Panel, EAAP Case Nos. 06-18, 06-19- 07-07, 07-08 OAH Nos. L2006100966, L2006110025, L20070706022, L2007060728, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC 347454
• Reed v. State of California, Los Angeles Unified School District, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell, California Department of Education, and State Board of Education, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC432420, CA Ct. of Appeal, 2nd Dist., Case No. B230817, CA Supreme Ct., Case No. 5191256

Vergara et al. v. State of California, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Tom Torlakson, the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC484642, CA Ct. of Appeal 2nd Dist., Case No. B253282, B253310

Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Under Government Code sections 11126(e), the State Board of Education hereby provides public notice that it may meet in Closed Session to decide whether there is a significant exposure to litigation, and to consider and act in connection with matters for which there is a significant exposure to litigation. Under Government Code sections 11126(e)(1) and (e)(2), the State Board of Education hereby provides public notice that it may meet in Closed Session to decide to initiate litigation and to consider and act in connection with litigation it has decided to initiate.

Under Government Code Section 11126(c)(14), the State Board of Education hereby provides public notice that it may meet in Closed Session to review and discuss the actual content of pupil achievement tests (including, but not limited to, the High School Exit Exam) that have been submitted for State Board approval and/or approved by the State Board.

ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE PROVIDED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY

ALL ITEMS MAY BE HEARD IN A DIFFERENT ORDER THAN HOW THEY ARE LISTED ON THE AGENDA ON ANY DAY OF THE NOTICED MEETING

THE ORDER OF BUSINESS MAY BE CHANGED WITHOUT NOTICE

Time is set aside for individuals desiring to speak on any topic not otherwise on the agenda. Please see the detailed agenda for the Public Session. In all cases, the presiding officer reserves the right to impose time limits on presentations as may be necessary to ensure that the agenda is completed.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY

Pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, any individual with a disability or any other individual who requires reasonable accommodation to attend or participate in a meeting or function of the California State Board of Education (SBE), may request assistance by contacting the SBE Office at 1430 N Street, Room 5111, Sacramento, CA 95814; by telephone at 916‑319-0827; or by facsimile at 916‑319-0175.

---

CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

FULL BOARD AGENDA 
Public Session Day 1

Wednesday, January 13, 2016 – 8:30 a.m. Pacific Time ±
California Department of Education
1430 N Street, Room 1101
Sacramento, California 95814

• Call to Order
• Salute to the Flag
• Communications
• Announcements
• Report of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction
• Special Presentations 
  Public notice is hereby given that special presentations for informational purposes may take place during this session.
• Agenda Items
• Adjournment

AGENDA ITEMS DAY 1

SBE Agenda for January 2016 - State Board of Education (CA Dept of Education):

Seattle Schools Community Forum: Policy 3208, Sexual Harassment Annual Report

Seattle Schools Community Forum: Policy 3208, Sexual Harassment Annual Report:

Policy 3208, Sexual Harassment Annual Report

Here's the latest in a recurring topic.

School Board policy 3208, Sexual Harassment, requires an annual report.

The Superintendent shall make an annual report to the Board reviewing the use and efficacy of this policy and related procedures. Recommendations for changes to this policy, if applicable, shall be included in the report. The Superintendent is encouraged to involve staff, students, and volunteers and parents in the review process.

I have written to the Board on numerous occasions over the past two years - since the NatureBridge incident - asking for this annual report. Every time before that I have asked for it, I have been told that no such report has ever been made.

That story just changed. I just got an email from the Board office saying that the report has been made. How did I miss it? Because the claim is pretty weak.

They now claim that the report was made verbally in August and September of 2014 to the Board Operations Committee. A review of the meeting minutes, however, makes it pretty clear that the report made at those meetings was not responsive to the policy. They were Title IX reports on incidents of sexual harassment, not a review of the use and efficacy of the policy. The Title IX reports did not include any recommendations for changes to the policy. There was no community input to these reports.

Here's what the committee minutes show for August:

Title IX sexual harassment student update: The first half of the 2013-14 Title IX report was presented by Pegi McEvoy on Harassment, Intimidation and Bullying (HIB) non-sexual harassment and sexual harassment student data. The adult data for the 2013-14 school year will be presented next month. Given that the Board has asked for annual school data, the district staff recommend that the annual Title IX report be routinely scheduled for August Operations Committee to allow time to assemble a report and make recommendations based upon complete school year data. Additionally, the superintendent has asked staff to Seattle Schools Community Forum: Policy 3208, Sexual Harassment Annual Report:

Yoo Hoo, Washington Legislature (and Governor Inslee)

I was just in Minnesota - great place with good education.  (Funny thing - in my sister's city, they have an out-of-retirement superintendent running their district.)

UNITED OPT OUT: The Movement to End Corporate Education Reform - United Opt Out National 

UOO Conference, February 26 – 28, 2016: Transcending Resistance, Igniting Revolution

It is time for revolution. It is time for non-negotiable demands. It is time to reclaim our public schools and demand all for all children. Join us in Philly as we dialogue with an incredible group of revolutionary leaders whoRead more

UNITED OPT OUT: The Movement to End Corporate Education Reform - United Opt Out National 

Schneider’s ESSA Digest, Part III (Pages 90 – 105) | deutsch29

Schneider’s ESSA Digest, Part III (Pages 90 – 105) | deutsch29:

Schneider’s ESSA Digest, Part III (Pages 90 – 105)

I am in the process of carefully reading the 1,061-page Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the December 10, 2015, reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), and writing a series of posts that will form a digest of those 1,061 pages.

This ESSA digest will be a long-term endeavor.

My first entry covers the first 47 pages.

My second entry continues by adding info from pages 47 to 90.

And now, I offer information on pages 90 to 105.

Sometimes I alter the format of quoted excerpts for ease of reading. Sometimes I comment, and sometimes I just summarize.

We will just dive in:

In my last installment, I left off on page 90 with schools determined to be in need of “comprehensive support and improvement.” As a condition for receiving Title I money, a state must notify a district regarding any school determined to be one tagged for needing improvement. The district and “stakeholders (including principals
and other school leaders, teachers, and parents)” are to “locally develop and implement a comprehensive support and improvement plan for the school to improve student outcomes” and which satisfies the following conditions:

(i) is informed by all indicators described in subsection (c)(4)(B) [centered on the federally-mandated annual testing], including student performance against State-determined long-term goals;

(ii) includes evidence-based interventions;

(iii) is based on a school-level needs assessment;

(iv) identifies resource inequities, which may include a review of local educational agency and school-level budgeting, to be addressed through implementation of
such comprehensive support and improvement plan;

(v) is approved by the school, local educational agency, and State educational agency; and

(vi) upon approval and implementation, is monitored and periodically reviewed by the State educational agency (pages 90-91).

There is also the additional requirement that states are to “establish exit criteria” for schools in need of comprehensive improvement– including setting a deadline not to exceed four years and to “result in more rigorous State-determined action, such as Schneider’s ESSA Digest, Part III (Pages 90 – 105) | deutsch29:

NYC Public School Parents: Our inBloom email saga Part I: Waiting for John King to respond to the FOIL

NYC Public School Parents: Our inBloom email saga Part I: Waiting for John King to respond to the FOIL:

Our inBloom email saga Part I: Waiting for John King to respond to the FOIL

I have taken  time during this holiday break to finally write up my experiences with my attempt to FOIL communications of the NY State Education Department regarding inBloom Inc.  Below is Part I.  Part II with excerpts from those emails will follow soon.

John King, now Acting US Secretary of Education

Fighting inBloom took a long time, especially here in New York;  we were the first state to organize a campaign against this data-grabbing project of the Gates Foundation, starting in January 2012,  and  the last state to pull out, in April 2014, due to the amazing ability of our Commissioner, John King, to ignore the vehement opposition from the State legislature, including the leaders of both parties, the school boards, the state superintendents, the teacher union, emails from thousands of parents, and finally the Governor.   (Background on the inBloom controversy is provided on the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy here; newsclips here.)

While in other states, it took only a few months to a year of  protests for their State Education chiefs to feel the pressure and pull out of inBloom, here in NY it took two and a half years and an act of the State Legislature as part of the budget deal on March 31, 2014 to convince our Commissioner this data-sharing arrangement was now illegal and thus could not be sustained.  (Here is a timeline of events.) 

But nothing was more frustrating than the year and half wait we had to endure, even after inBloom had closed its doors, to receive the emails between State Education Department officials and the private entities with whom they intended to share our most sensitive student data.   Here is that story.

On June 17, 2013, with the help of attorney Norman Siegel, we requested all email communications between officials of the NY State Education Department and the Gates Foundation, inBloom, the Shared Learning Collaborative LLC (inBloom's name before it became a separate corporation) , Wireless Generation (the major subcontractor for inBloom, hired to build the data system), and Amplify (Wireless Gen's new name after it was bought by Rupert Murdoch and hired Joel Klein to run this company as a division of News Corporation.) 

We asked for the communications between January 1, 2011 and May 1, 2013 through a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request.  Actually, the request was made on behalf of the PS 75 PTA in District 3 in Manhattan and the Community Education Council in District 14 Brooklyn, whose members were very concerned about the inBloom plan and agreed that this was important information that parents had a right to know.    

In NYC and throughout the state, as well as in all the other nine inBloom states and districts, parents were understandably concerned about the decision of their State Education Departments to share the highly sensitive personal information of their children with all these private NYC Public School Parents: Our inBloom email saga Part I: Waiting for John King to respond to the FOIL:

A letter that shows how big business pushed Common Core - The Washington Post

A letter that shows how big business pushed Common Core - The Washington Post:

A letter that shows how big business pushed Common Core

In recent days, education activists have become incensed with Rex Tillerson, the ExxonMobil chief executive, for remarks he made about public schools that were part of a story about the Common Core State Standards in Fortune magazine.

The article, titled “Business Gets Schooled” and written by Peter Elkind, describes how involved some leaders of big business entities were in promoting the Core standards in recent standards. It has long been known that Microsoft founder Bill Gates funded the creation and promotion of the Core through his foundation, but the extent of involvement by some other business leaders was not as well known.

[Dear Mr. Tillerson: ‘Please leave our children alone’]

After describing an unsuccessful effort by Gates to persuade Charles Koch to stop funding conservative groups opposing the Core, Elkind writes:

This extraordinary tête-à-tête is just one example of how the war over Common Core has personally engaged—and bedeviled—some of America’s most powerful business leaders. Hugely controversial, it has thrust executives into the uncomfortable intersection of business and politics.

In truth, Common Core might not exist without the corporate community. The nation’s business establishment has been clamoring for more rigorous education standards—ones that would apply across the entire nation — for years. It views them as desperately needed to prepare America’s future workforce and to bolster its global competitiveness. One measure of the deep involvement of corporate leaders: The Common Core standards were drafted by determining the skills that businesses (and colleges) need and then working backward to decide what students should learn.

Organizations such as the Business Roundtable have devoted considerable effort to the initiative. The education chair for that association of CEOs, Exxon Mobil XOM -0.97% chief Rex Tillerson, has played a particularly prominent role. A stern, commanding figure with an Old Testament glare and a chewy Texas drawl, Tillerson is an unlikely person to lead a campaign of persuasion. (Never a fan of the press, he declined to speak to Fortune for this article.)

Tillerson gave a number of speeches promoting the Core — and he lobbied policymakers in states to stick with the Core when some began to back away A letter that shows how big business pushed Common Core - The Washington Post:

On the Obsession with Outcomes | Save Maine Schools

On the Obsession with Outcomes | Save Maine Schools:

On the Obsession with Outcomes

According to Tom Vander Ark, Summit Public Schools have a “college and career readiness system will track growth trajectory of knowledge, skills, and success habits against college goals, and “students falling short of their planned growth trajectory, on any front, will see a big red warning system.”

Let that sink in.

“Students falling short of their planned growth trajectory, on any front, will see a big red warning system.”

Vander Ark describes the system with breathless admiration: “I don’t know of anyone else thinking about goal-focused tracking on these dimensions,” and at a White House summit on next-gen high schools, Isabelle Parker, CFO of Summit Public Schools, boasted: “We cultivate in our children the real-life habits and skills that lead to success in today’s world. And we ensure every minute of every day at school is supporting this type of student-centered learning.”

But I wonder: what kind of effect might an outcome-obsessed system like this have on a young person’s mind?  What happens to those transformative literary experiences like the one I had with Great Expectations?  Are students trapped into believing that the “outcomes” they are working toward are all there is?

If you’ve not yet read it, please take a moment to read this exceptional essay by Peter Greene called “One Wrong Move.”

Greene, who has taught for 30 years in the same town, describes an experience with a class of juniors who were “so paralyzed with fear they couldn’t do much of anything.”

“These were honor students,” Greene writes. “The top students that my rural/small town high school had to offer. And they couldn’t get past their On the Obsession with Outcomes | Save Maine Schools:

A Historian Reflects on Failing at National Board Certification - Living in Dialogue

A Historian Reflects on Failing at National Board Certification - Living in Dialogue:

A Historian Reflects on Failing at National Board Certification

By John Thompson.

Even as I tried to distance myself from the computer over the holiday season, edu-politics kept drawing me back. Since my book, A Teacher’s Tale, has been released, I reread the manuscript’s my first draft. Mostly, I did so to revisit the stories of students that were edited out, but I also stumbled across accounts of issues that I previously avoided when blogging. I also sought to come clean on mistakes I’d made that were cut from the manuscript. Fortunately, none were as indefensible as the unforced errors that were caused by corporate reformers’ micromanaging of worlds that they knew nothing about.

As the Gates Foundation’s “teacher quality” initiatives collapse, the obvious question is why did they attempt to reinvent the wheel. Why did they not invest in scaling up National Board (NBPTS) teacher certification? Since I’m a NBPTS washout, my endorsement of that program is pretty unbiased. The process was enormously valuable to me and I was not punished by failing to pass its tests. The national certification process also produced a great record of my students’ experiences during my training. So, this post will get my constructive criticisms with the NBPTS grading out of the way so that subsequent posts can focus on my students.

I fell 39 points short of earning NBPTS certification. I took consolation in the numbers showing that it wasn’t so much the evidence of my instructional quality that brought my score down. The tests on knowledge of subject matters had cost me 77.63 points. Then and now, it seemed clear to me that I had more academic knowledge about those subjects than the test-makers did but maybe I, the historian, and they, the education test-makers, spoke past each other. So, I might as well get my big, systematic concern out of the way, while touching on my complaint about questions and answers regarding educational expertise.

Then and now, it is hard for the education profession to admit that equally great teaching looks very different in high-performing as opposed to low-performing schools. Moreover, most teachers do not work in extremely high-challenge schools, so many or most (and most test graders?) have limited knowledge of the circumstances that undermine instruction in the most at-risk schools.

My scores on the lessons in the type of classes that most educators would recognize were 3.00 and 3.25 on a A Historian Reflects on Failing at National Board Certification - Living in Dialogue:

Empower LA – Neighborhood Council Online Election Voter Registration

Empower LA – VRP:

Welcome to the 2016 Neighborhood Council Online Election Voter Registration Portal

EmpowerLA is excited to announce that in addition to having polling locations on election day, 35 of the 96 Neighborhood Councils in the City of Los Angeles are also piloting Online Voting for their elections, which provides an opportunity for voters to register in advance of the election day and vote from a desktop computer, a tablet, or a smart phone.  In addition, 12 of the 35 are offering Interactive Voice Response (touch-tone phone) voting for their stakeholders.

Neighborhood Council elections are open to voters who are qualified stakeholders within the boundaries of the Neighborhood Council.  A stakeholder is defined as anyone who lives, works or owns real property in the neighborhood and also to those who declare a stake in the neighborhood as a community interest stakeholder, defined as a person who affirms a substantial and ongoing participation within the Neighborhood Council’s boundaries and who may be in a community organization such as, but not limited to, educational, non-profit and/or religious organization.  In other words, a voter can qualify if they are a resident, worker, real property owner or if they have a significant and active involvement in your community in another way that’s connected to a qualifying address.

You can register now to vote online for your Neighborhood Council elections.  To register, you will need to provide your qualifying address within the Neighborhood Council boundaries.  If you don’t know your Neighborhood Council, please provide your qualifying address in the box below, and you will be directed to your Neighborhood Council’s Online Voter Registration page if they are offering Online Voting.

Thank you for participating in the Neighborhood Council elections!

Choose Your Neighborhood Council

* Interactive voice response also offered

Select OneCanoga ParkCentral Alameda*Del ReyDowntown LAEmpowerment Congress North*Empowerment Congress Southeast*Empowerment Congress SouthwestEmpowerment Congress WestEncinoGlassell ParkGreater Valley GlenHarbor Gateway NorthHistoric CulturalHistoric Highland ParkLA 32*Lake BalboaLincoln Heights*Mid City*Mid City West*North Hills WestNorth Hollywood NortheastNorthridge EastNorthridge WestOlympic Park*PalmsPanorama CityPorter RanchReseda*Silver LakeSouth RobertsonStudio City*Sylmar*West HillsWilmingtonZapata-King*

Please enter a your qualifying address below

i.e 200 N. Spring street

Choose Your Neighborhood Council

* Interactive voice response also offered

Canoga Park | Central Alameda* | Del Rey | Downtown LA | Empowerment Congress North*| Empowerment Congress Southeast* | Empowerment Congress Southwest | Empowerment Congress West | Encino | Glassell Park | Greater Valley Glen | Harbor Gateway North| Historic Cultural | Historic Highland Park | LA 32* | Lake Balboa | Lincoln Heights* | Mid City* | Mid City West* | North Hills West | North Hollywood Northeast | Northridge East| Northridge West | Olympic Park* | Palms | Panorama City | Porter Ranch | Reseda* | Silver Lake | South Robertson | Studio City* | Sylmar* | West Hills | Wilmington | Zapata-King* |

 Empower LA – VRP: