Huntingto Park High School fulfilled the requirements spelled out for us to move us out of PSC 2.0 under terms set down by our board. The state of California gave us an API score of 603. Ms. Flores then set up a special Public School Choice plan just for us and labeled it, “2.5.” It had an abbreviated time line for the process of writing proposals and it required an outline as part of a letter of intent. Part of the justification for this sudden changing of the agreement was that Libra Academy had their CST scores included with our scores. Without Libra’s 124 freshmen scores, it was claimed that our API would fall to 546. Well, Libra has the same location code number (8700) and they have freely used our services and facilities. Not only this, but even Howard Blume of the LA Times had to laugh over the math involved in this claim. Even with the cherry picking of students inherent in the portfolio process of admission into Libra, how can removing 124 freshmen scores drop us that much? This was Yolie’s math, not the state of California’s.
Letters of Intent – the “talks” begin.
Many of us knew that it would serve us best to have ONE proposal from teachers. That didn’t work out. Our UTLA steering committee thought we were able to secure some agreements from District Six regarding a freshman house and a comprehensive high school with semi-autonomous academies, but later a plan emerged for “small schools” under one location code number. This plan was proposed with many of our “out-of-classroom” people as its team leaders, and administrative leadership within District Six did their best to make it appear as though our only option, as directed from Cortines, was to break up the school into small schools. This turned out NOT to be true. There was no such mandate from Cortines. There has also been no willingness on the part of certain key members of the small school proposal team to discuss differences with the intention of merging reform plans. Mr. Dave Sievers submitted a letter of intent on his own, hoping to form a compromise plan, but I am unaware of any other individuals who have joined him to write a proposal. Charter Schools submitted NO letters of intent for HPHS.
The TWO primary reform plan proposals:
Here’s where things stand during our “writing” phase in Yolie’s PSC 2.5 process:
We have a small school proposal with a governance model very similar to what we have now. A principal would be in charge of all five small schools. They would all be under the 8700 location code number. The principal would be answerable to the glass building headquarters of District Six which would bless us with more of their successful top-down decisions regarding curriculum and protocol. Teachers would be selected by the leaders of these small schools on the basis of …. gee, I don’t know… their texting abilities? The Small Schools would be schools that encompass the full high school spectrum of grades nine through twelve, but incrementally. Under this plan, next year’s small schools would only have grades nine and ten. Undesirable teachers would still be teaching grades 11 and 12 as they brush up their resumes and consider whether they want to stay in this district, move to another, or work at TAMS. Let’s not forget that Roosevelt High School was told that its small schools would be under one location code number. That lasted one year? They are now divided and experiencing all the problems inherent in such a division.
We also have the UTLA Steering committee formulating a plan for a comprehensive high school with semi-autonomous academies and a freshman house. Writing is taking place now. If you would like to get involved, contact Laurie Woerfel. The academies would function as strengthened SLC’s. The Freshman House would seek to address behavior and academic impairments in our freshmen resulting from years of social promotion and neglect at lower grade levels. There are plans in the works to increase accountabilities AT ALL LEVELS of the school, not simply to create a bully club to beat up teachers who happen to work at an urban school with gangs, drugs, and lower socio-economic demographics.
Deadlines loom over the horizon.
It’s more than obvious which plan is favored by Ms. Yolie Flores and by District Six, but they are not making the ultimate decision in this process. Mr. Cortines makes a recommendation to the Board. The board votes on the plan. Yes, there is a community advisory vote coming up in March, but it is merely an advisory vote. It has no binding power whatsoever. Mr. Cortines and the rest of the board do not necessarily agree with Ms. Flores or our mini-district. The District is looking for a summary at the end of January. The proposals are supposed to be completed at the end of February. The ultimate decision will be made in the middle of April.
Comments