Luther Burbank Middle School teacher Benjamin Feinberg in the last week of class this June.

*UPDATED

There were three days left in the school year, and final grades had already been turned in. Benjamin Feinberg’s 8th grade algebra students at Luther Burbank Middle School in Highland Park were looking forward to graduation and officially becoming high schoolers. But despite these kids having no tangible reason to stay engaged in the lesson plan and work hard, there they were on a June afternoon, each with laser-like focus as Feinberg worked his way through the day’s 84-minute class, the students learning simply for learning’s sake.

“I tell them ahead of time that I am going to keep teaching as if nothing is happening, so that they know it is coming” even though it’s the end of the term, Feinberg said. “And then I do that. They just keep learning. I find that totally works. Kids want to learn and they want to be ready for high school.”

Feinberg’s secret to hooking kids’ interest? Real world data. And not just real-world, but their-world data. Feinberg is fascinated with data, particularly about LA Unified. When a new set of accountability measurements came out in February, he dove in, crunching the numbers and even coming up with his own metric.

That fascination he then brought into the classroom and found that kids were surprisingly interested in dense data about the school district.

“Math lives all around us, so if we want to teach our students to be lifelong mathematicians, we have to emphasize that every aspect of our life can be analyzed mathematically and be part of the decision-making process,” said Feinberg, who teaches magnet students from Luther Burbank’s Math-Science-Technology Magnet and its Police Academy Magnet.

Feinberg also launched a data blog, schooldatanerd.com, in February where he started by analyzing the new school accountability system developed by the California Office to Reform Education (CORE). He said he was inspired after reading’s LA School Report’s own analysis of the CORE data. The six California school districts in CORE, including LA Unified, chose not to do any public analysis beyond a school’s individual score, and the system will likely not be used again because the state is currently developing its own accountability system that will be required under the federal Every Student Succeeds Act.

“At first (the blog) was just for students as a teaching tool, but now it has become more of a hobby for my adult friends to also read,” said Feinberg, who is from from Mar Vista, attended a magnet program at Venice High, earned his undergraduate degree from UC Berkeley and his Master of Arts in Education from Loyola Marymount University. He was nominated by his principal last fall for the California League of Schools Teacher of the Year award.

Using real-world data is a cornerstone of Feinberg’s teaching style as he strives to move math beyond just numbers and equations on the board. His lesson that June afternoon included a problem about the angle of the Leaning Tower of Pisa and a blog post he wrote about the college acceptance rates of LA Unified’s high schools.

Students’ projects read more like social studies treatises than math class papers. Feinberg helps direct them to data sets about problems or situations close to home, such as the drought or ocean pollution. Using that data, they form their own conclusions and solutions.

Feinberg’s students said they appreciated the real-world aspect of his math teaching.

“I realized when he let us search our own high schools that Venice didn’t have that many kids apply to UC schools, and only half of those kids got in, so it was kind of depressing,” said student Sophia Maldonado, who will be attending Venice High School.

Student Marissa Lepe said the use of data has helped her excel in the class.

“He helps us connect it to something else in the real world and we are able to see how it applies to our daily lives,” Lepe said. “I knew how to do math (before this year), but I wasn’t very confident and he has helped improve my math skills greatly with the way that he connects everything and helps us understand better how to use it.”

A UNIQUE LOOK AT DATA

Feinberg’s blog, which has already topped 50 posts, features thought-provoking and complex breakdowns of the CORE data. But he also goes beyond CORE scores. Posts have focused on teaching salaries at LA Unified’s charter schools vs. district schools, comparing college acceptance rates of charters vs. traditional schools, comparing test scores at co-locations of charter and traditional schools and finding out if schools with “math” in their title did well on math scores. Spoiler alert: they did not, leading Feinberg to write: “I guess you can’t name your way to success.”

When Feinberg started showing students some of his data conclusions on CORE, he said they became engaged in the material. Feinberg’s blog has taken several different looks at the CORE data and made a number of conclusions, such as that the district’s high schools scored better than elementary schools, which was the reverse of what had occurred with the state’s previous accountability system, the Academic Performance Index (API).

“Every time you make decision about how you are going to calculate scores, that biases the score in some way, and the goal is to reduce the bias, I think, so that it is equal across grade levels,” Feinberg said. “When you create CORE scores, they seem to have a median score that is higher for the high schools. There’s more than one way to take it — it could be that high schools have gotten better, or this could be just another score that has some kind of internal bias for the high schools.”

Feinberg also examined how schools did by race, subgroups and socio-economic status. After concluding that the top CORE schools are whiter, wealthier and have fewer English learners than most of LA Unified, he decided to try a different angle in figuring out the top schools and used regression software to calculate a prediction for a school’s score based on its racial, economic and subgroup factors. By using this method, schools can be compared to other schools with similar demographics and how they were predicted to score. Schools can score high on his “FO’REAL score” (which stands for Fair and Obvious Residual Evaluation of Academics and Learning) even if they didn’t score high on the overall rankings.

“The difference between what the school scored and what the FO’REAL model predicted tells you a lot about how they did compared to schools of similar attributes,” Feinberg said.

“These results are both satisfying and anecdotally accurate,” Feinberg wrote on his blog, because all of the top schools on the FO’REAL score are “almost entirely made of schools that generally represent the rest of LAUSD — primarily low-income, primarily Latino and African-American, with a high population of English learners.”

Feinberg said his students were particularly interested in the FO’REAL scores.

“They liked those because it made our school look good. They thought it was interesting and really wanted to look up their own neighborhood school’s score, and looking at how it impacts them, and that’s often the goal of math — to show students how this impacts them, and I think it achieved that goal,” he said.

Some of Feinberg’s data crunching makes the district look good, some does not, but he said he has not gotten any negative feedback from other teachers or district superiors over his blog.

“People see that I’m not just on one side, and they know me. I genuinely feel that the best education is the best education and that numbers are just numbers, and that they often tell a story, a complex story,” Feinberg said. “I have friends who are in charters schools, friends who work for (the California Charter Schools Association), friends all over, and I think they realize that I try and be equal and just present the facts. I put in a little opinion, but it is data analysis.”

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Training opportunities have been key to Feinberg’s own development and that of his teaching style.

Some of the techniques he learned through professional training to keep his students focused include rhythmical clapping to get their attention; the students repeat the clap back. Every fifteen minutes or so, the students are asked to get up and wander around the room to find a parter or a group and work on a question.

“The clapping, I don’t know where I got that. I’ve learned that you can try a lot of different things, but someone once said to me, consistency is like pregnancy, you can’t be a little bit consistent. And it’s so true,” Feinberg said. “If you are consistent about any of these techniques, even the worst math curriculum, as long as you are consistent and apply it appropriately, it will probably work for you.”

Feinberg said he wasn’t always adept at keeping control of a classroom. His first teaching assignment was at Johnnie L. Cochran Middle School while working for Teach for America. Before his two-year TFA stint, the second which was spent at Aspire Public Schools after being laid off from Cochran, he received five weeks of training.

“When I was at my first school I was a total mess. It was Teach For America and I was thrown in. Five weeks is not enough time to prepare a teacher. I sort of listened to everyone around me and made every mistake possible,” Feinberg said.

He listed some mistakes as “escalating conflict with a student in front of them, not like yelling at them or anything but making it a point in front of the whole class. Not scaffolding things properly, going to too fast or too slow. More teacher talk than student talk.”

Feinberg, who has been teaching for eight years, said he follows a hybrid of several professional development courses he has taken since his Teach for America job. Before coming to Luther Burbank he worked his Teach for America job for one year at Johnnie L. Cochran and a few years at Aspire Public Schools, where he learned new techniques through professional development courses that followed the teachings of Lee Canter and Doug Lemov. At Luther Burbank he was sent to a development course led by Kagan, and he now blends all of these techniques into his own.

“When I went to the charter school I learned how to become a much better teacher there,” Feinberg said. “We got a lot of professional development, and I definitely owe a lot of my teaching style to them.”

• Updated to reflect Feinberg’s first year of Teach for America was at Johnnie L. Cochran Middle School and that he received his undergraduate degree from UC Berkeley.

As it was with middle schools, demographics contrast starkly at the top and bottom LA Unified elementary schools on the California Office to Reform Education’s (CORE) accountability index.

The schools with the lowest five scores are located in economically challenged neighborhoods and have higher levels of disabled students, English learners and non-white students. Like with middle schools, but not high schools, a majority of the top schools were located on the Westside and the San Fernando Valley. Seven schools accounted for the bottom five CORE scores due to ties, which also caused nine schools to have the top five scores.  

Latinos, who make up 74 percent of the entire district, made up 21 percent of the top schools, while there were 57 percent Latinos at the bottom schools. African-Americans, who make up 8 percent of the district, had 3 percent of top schools’ enrollment and 40 percent at the bottom schools.

White students, who make up 10 percent of the district, made up 47 percent of the top schools and 2 percent of the bottom schools. Asians, who make up 6 percent of all LA Unified students, were at 23 percent at the top schools and 0.14 percent at the bottom schools. 

Other subgroups saw wide disparities between the top and bottom schools. Students who qualified for free and reduced-price lunch made up 92 percent of the bottom schools and 25 percent of the top schools, while English learners made up 30 percent of the bottom schools and 9 percent of the top schools. Students with disabilities was a closer category, with 12 percent of the bottom schools and 8 percent of the top schools.

• Read previous CORE stories and school comparisons. 

BOTTOM SCHOOLS

Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary School (2015-16) 
1963 East 103rd St.
Los Angeles, 90002
CORE score: 15
Latino: 67%
African-American: 29%
White: 4%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 37%
Students with disabilities: 11%
Free and reduced lunch: 94%

Hillcrest Drive Elementary (2015-16)
4041 Hillcrest Dr.
Los Angeles, 90008
CORE score: 16
Latino: 49%
African-American: 46%
White: 2%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 34%
Students with disabilities: 13%
Free and reduced lunch: 81% (2014-15)

107th Street Elementary (2015-16) 
147 East 107th St.
Los Angeles, 90003
CORE score: 16
Latino: 73%
African-American: 25%
White: 1%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 44%
Students with disabilities: 8%
Free and reduced lunch: 89% (2014-15)

Century Park Elementary (2015-16)
10935 South Spinning Ave.
Inglewood, 90303
CORE score: 17
Latino: 33%
African-American: 65%
White: 1%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 17%
Students with disabilities: 11%
Free and reduced lunch: 83 (2014-15)

Annalee Avenue Elementary  (2014-15)
19410 South Annalee Ave.
Carson, 90746
CORE score: 17
Latino: 12%
African-American: 84%
White: 0%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 6%
Students with disabilities: 14%
Free and reduced lunch: 72%

Barton Hill Elementary (2014-15) 
423 North Pacific Ave.
San Pedro, 90731-2019
CORE score: 19
Latino: 82%
African-American: 14%
White: 2%
Asian: 1%
English learners: 37%
Students with disabilities: 14%
Free and reduced lunch: 93%

Cabrillo Avenue Elementary (2014-15)
732 South Cabrillo Ave.
San Pedro, 90731-3025
CORE score: 19
Latino: 84%
African-American: 9%
White: 4%
Asian: 1%
English learners:35%
Students with disabilities: 16%
Free and reduced lunch: 92%

BOTTOM SCHOOLS AVERAGES
Latino: 57%
African-American: 40%
White: 2%
Asian: 0.14%
English learners: 30%
Students with disabilities: 12%
Free and reduced lunch: 86%

TOP SCHOOLS

Solano Avenue Elementary (2015-16) 
615 Solano Ave.
Los Angeles, 90012
CORE score: 99
Latino: 46%
African-American: 2%
White: 3%
Asian: 45%
English learners: 18%
Students with disabilities: 7%
Free and reduced lunch: 69% (2014-15)

Clover Avenue Elementary (2015-16)
11020 Clover Ave.
Los Angeles, 90034
CORE score: 99
Latino: 16%
African-American: 5%
White: 29%
Asian: 43%
English learners: 14%
Students with disabilities: 4%
Free and reduced lunch: 20% (2014-15)

Porter Ranch Community School (2015-16) 
12450 Mason Ave.
Porter Ranch, 91326
CORE score: 99
Latino: 10%
African-American: 4%
White: 34%
Asian: 47%
English learners: 9%
Students with disabilities: 6%
Free and reduced lunch: 11% (2014-15)

Woodland Hills Elementary Charter for Enriched Studies (2014-15)
22201 San Miguel St.
Woodland Hills, 91364-3039
ORE score: 97
Latino: 9%
African-American: 3%
White: 72%
Asian: 9%
English learners: 2%
Students with disabilities: 8%
Free and reduced lunch: 10%

Wonderland Avenue Elementary (2014-15)
8510 Wonderland Ave.
Los Angeles, 90046-1451
CORE score: 97
Latino: 4%
African-American: 3%
White: 71%
Asian: 19%
English learners: 8%
Students with disabilities: 6%
Free and reduced lunch: 6%

Welby Way Elementary Charter (2014-15) 
23456 Welby Way
West Hills, 91307-3328
CORE score: 97
Latino: 12%
African-American: 4%
White: 43%
Asian: 32%
English learners: 4%
Students with disabilities: 6%
Free and reduced lunch: 11%

Roscomare Elementary Charter (2014-15) 
2425 Roscomare Road
Los Angeles, 90077
CORE score: 97
Latino: 3%
African-American: 3%
White: 80%
Asian: 7%
English learners: 1%
Students with disabilities: 9%
Free and reduced lunch: 6%

Clifford Street Elementary (2014-15) 
2150 Duane St.
Los Angeles, 90039
CORE score: 97
Latino: 82%
African-American: 2%
White: 12%
Asian: 2%
English learners: 25%
Students with disabilities: 17%
Free and reduced lunch: 85%

Canyon Charter Elementary (2014-15)
421 Entrada Dr.
Santa Monica, 90402
CORE score: 97
Latino: 4%
African-American: 3%
White: 79%
Asian: 4%
English learners: 2%
Students with disabilities: 7%
Free and reduced lunch: 3%

TOP SCHOOLS AVERAGES
Latino: 21%
African-American: 3%
White: 47%
Asian: 23%
English learners: 9%
Students with disabilities: 8%
Free and reduced lunch: 25%

When it comes to the performance of some minority groups and high-needs students, LA Unified high schools showed more ability than their middle school counterparts in beating the odds on the California Office to Reform Education’s (CORE) new school accountability index.

While the performance of the district’s middle schools tended to break along familiar lines — with the top schools filled with high levels of white students in less impoverished areas — the CORE data for high schools reveal a different story in several key categories. (LA School Report will be publishing a CORE demographic analysis of elementary schools soon.)

For one, nearly all of the top schools were clustered in the downtown or South Los Angeles areas, while a majority of the top middle schools were located in more affluent areas of the Westside and the San Fernando Valley. Four of the top five schools were also magnets, demonstrating again why district leaders and the school board have been touting magnets as a way to increase enrollment at LA Unified. 

Ninety percent of the students at the district’s top five schools qualify for free and reduced price lunch, compared to 70 percent at the bottom five schools. The district average is 77 percent. At middle schools, the story was much different, with 37 percent of students at the top five schools qualifying, compared to 90 percent at the bottom schools.

The performance of Latinos, who make up 74 percent of the student body, also differed significantly, with enrollment at the top five schools totaling 70 percent, compared to a 34 percent enrollment at the top middle schools. White students, who made up 41 percent of the students at the top middle schools, comprised only 3 percent of the students at the top high schools. White students make up roughly 10 percent of the LA Unified student body.

• Read LA School Report’s analysis of CORE data for LAUSD schools.
• Why the CORE system was developed and why it is only temporary.
• Why charter schools aren’t included in the CORE data. 
• The top and bottom LAUSD elementary schools in the CORE data. 
· The top and bottom LAUSD middle schools in the CORE data. 

African American students, who make up roughly 8 percent of the student body, fared almost evenly at high schools, with 12 percent enrolled at the top schools versus 11 percent in the bottom schools. Asian students, who make up 6 percent of the student body, comprised 16 percent of the students at the top schools and zero percent at the bottom schools.

Other decades-old demographic challenges still remain at high schools, the CORE data show. All of the bottom schools were traditional high schools located in economically challenged neighborhoods clustered downtown or in South Los Angeles. They all had higher rates of English learners and special education students than the top schools, and only 1 percent white students.

The CORE index, which was unveiled in February, is the first school accountability system in California to move beyond just tests scores. The CORE formula that gives a school a score of 1 to 100 includes consideration for the standardized test performance of a school’s lowest performing racial subgroup, English learners, students with disabilities and those qualifying for a free and reduced price lunch. It also accounts for graduation rates, suspension rates and absenteeism.

TOP HIGH SCHOOLS

Harbor Teacher Prep Academy (2015-16)
1111 Figueroa Place
Wilmington, 90744-2311
CORE score: 100
Latino: 57%
African American: 11%
White: 4%
Asian: 22%
English learners: 0%
Students with disabilities: 1%
Free and reduced lunch: 72%

Math, Science and Tech Academy at Roosevelt High (2015-16)
456 S Mathews St.
Los Angeles, 90033
CORE score: 98
Latino: 98%
African American: 0%
White: 1%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 22%
Students with disabilities: 18%
Free and reduced lunch: 88%

Downtown Business High (2015-16)
1081 West Temple St.
Los Angeles, 90012-1573
CORE score: 97
Latino: 59%
African American: 6%
White: 2%
Asian: 31%
English learners: 5%
Students with disabilities: 4%
Free and reduced lunch: 76%

Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet (2015-16)
1200 Cornwell St.
Los Angeles, 90033
CORE score: 96
Latino: 80%
African American: 2%
White: 6%
Asian: 13%
English learners: 2%
Students with disabilities: 3%
Free and reduced lunch: 85%

King Drew Magnet High School of Science and Medicine (2015-16)
1601 E 120th St.
Los Angeles, 90059
CORE score: 96
Latino: 56%
African American: 42%
White: 1%
Asian: 13%
English learners: 3%
Students with disabilities: 2%
Free and reduced lunch: 88%

Total averages

Latino: 70%
African American: 12%
White: 2.8%
Asian: 16%
English learners: 6%
Students with disabilities: 10%
Free and reduced lunch: 82%

BOTTOM HIGH SCHOOLS

David Starr Jordan High School (2015-16)
2265 E 103rd St.
Los Angeles, 90002
CORE score: 22
Latino: 81%
African American: 17%
White: 1%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 34%
Students with disabilities: 21%
Free and reduced lunch: 56%

Early College Academy – LA Trade Tech College (2014-15)
400 W. Washington Blvd.
Los Angeles, 90015
CORE score: 34
Latino: 88%
African American: 7%
White: 5%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 25%
Students with disabilities: not available
Free and reduced lunch: 73%

Dr. Maya Angelou Community High (2015-16)
300 E 53rd St.
Los Angeles, 90011
CORE score: 37
Latino: 90%
African American: 9%
White: 0%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 29%
Students with disabilities: 11%
Free and reduced lunch: 66%

Agustus F. Hawkins High Critical Design and Gaming (2015-16)
300 E 53rd St.
Los Angeles, 90011
CORE score: 37
Latino: 85%
African American: 14%
White: 0%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 23%
Students with disabilities: 11%
Free and reduced lunch: 77%

Thomas Jefferson Senior High (2015-16)
1319 E 41st St.
Los Angeles, 90011
CORE score: 43
Latino: 88%
African American: 10%
White: 0%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 28%
Students with disabilities: 14%
Free and reduced lunch: 79%

Total averages
Latino: 90%
African American: 11%
White: 1%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 35%
Students with disabilities: 14%
Free and reduced lunch: 70%

* Free and reduced lunch data based on 2014-15 stats

Despite for the first time taking into consideration the performance of subgroups like English learners, students with disabilities and those from low-income families, there is still a wide gulf between the top and bottom LA Unified middle schools at LA Unified when it comes to their score on the California Office to Reform Education’s (CORE) new school accountability index. And it breaks down along familiar lines: where you live and the color of your skin. 

The CORE index, which was unveiled in February, is the first school accountability system in California to move beyond just tests scores. The CORE formula that gives a school a score of 1 to 100 includes consideration for the standardized test performance of a school’s lowest performing racial subgroup, English learners, students with disabilities and those qualifying for a free and reduced price lunch. It also accounts for graduation rates, suspension rates and absenteeism, all in an effort to give schools “the ability to take a more complex, comprehensive look at what is going on in their school,” John McDonald, a consultant to CORE, said when the system was unveiled.

• Read LA School Report’s analysis of CORE data for LAUSD schools.

• Why the CORE system was developed and why it is only temporary.

• Why charter schools aren’t included in the CORE data. 

• The top and bottom LAUSD elementary schools in the CORE data. 

A look at the top and bottom performing middle schools at LA Unified on the CORE index shows many of the same disparities found with systems that relied just on test scores: Schools with more white students and in high-income areas significantly outperformed schools with minorities and low incomes.

LA Unified middle schools in the top five were made up of 40.78 percent white students, even though whites total only 9.8 percent of the student body overall. Four of the schools were in white, affluent areas of the city in the Westside and the San Fernando Valley. (See above map.) The bottom five schools, however, were clustered near each other in South Los Angeles, with student bodies that had 75.4 percent Latino students, higher than the district average, which is 74 percent for the 2015-16 school year.

Asians, who make up 6 percent of the district, made up 0.04 percent of the bottom schools and 11.9 percent of the top schools. African Americans, who make up 8.4 percent of the district, made up 8.46 percent of the top schools and 17.96 percent of the bottom schools. 

There were also disparities between the top and bottom schools in the percentage of English leaners (7.18 percent to 28.5 percent), students with disabilities (8 percent to 16.25 percent) and those qualifying for free and reduced price lunch (37.02 percent to 89.52 percent).

Blogger Benjamin Feinberg of LA School Data, a teacher at LA Unified’s Luther Burbank Middle School who has also taught at charters, is one person who is dissatisfied with the CORE index. He applied an equalizing formula to the CORE data that he says “levels the playing field” when it comes to the challenging demographics some schools face. He wrote:

“I ran a regression and gave each school a score I am calling the FO’REAL Score. This model takes the demographics of a school (socioeconomic status, students with special needs population, English learner population and ethnicity makeup) and predicts a score based on those factors, as seen in the trend across all schools. I then compared their actual score to their predicted score by subtracting the two – a positive difference means they outperformed expectations and a negative score means they under-performed.

 

“I took it one step further and gave them a percentile rank – what percent of LAUSD schools did they do better than? For example, if you got a 65%, your school did better than 65% of all LAUSD schools.”

Applying the Fo’Real index to a number of the top and bottom middle schools can change how a school ranks, with some schools doing better and others doing worse based on the “predicted outcome” they should have achieved. Click here to test it out.

CORE and LA Unified have so far not released any analysis or number crunching they have done on the CORE numbers.

“The data in education lags. That’s what I find as an educator myself,” Feinberg told LA School Report when asked why he had analyzed the CORE data. “People don’t realize the data is out there until a person like myself gets the ball rolling and then people start looking at it. I was surprised (the district did not analyze the data).”

Of the top five middle schools, three (Alfred B. Nobel Charter, Hesby Oaks Leadership and Paul Revere Charter) are affiliated charters and one, Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies, is a magnet school. None of the bottom five schools is a magnet or affiliated charter.

TOP FIVE LAUSD MIDDLE SCHOOLS ON CORE INDEX

Alfred B. Nobel Charter (2014-15)
1963 East 103rd St., Los Angeles 90002
CORE score: 91
Latino: 38.5%
African American: 5.3%
White: 29.9%
Asian: 15.5%
English learners: 1.9%
Students with disabilities: not available
Free and reduced lunch: 36.1%

Hesby Oaks Leadership (2015-16)
15530 Hesby St., Encino 91436
CORE score: 90
Latino: 14%
African American: 3%
White: 71%
Asian: 6%
English learners: 5%
Students with disabilities: 8%
Free and reduced lunch: 36.1% (2014-15)

Robert Frost Middle (2015-16)
12314 Bradford Place, Granada Hills 91344
CORE score: 89
Latino: 64%
African American: 4%
White: 21%
Asian: 8%
English learners: 4%
Students with disabilities: 10%
Free and reduced lunch:  54.4%

Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies (2015-16)
5931 W 18th St., Los Angeles  90035
CORE score: 88
Latino: 31%
African American: 18%
White: 28%
Asian: 21%
English learners: 2%
Students with disabilities: 4%
Free and reduced lunch: 35%

Paul Revere Charter Middle (2015-16)
1450 Allenford Ave, Los Angeles 90049
CORE score: 87
Latino: 21%
African American: 12%
White: 54%
Asian: 9%
English learners: 23%
Students with disabilities: 10%
Free and reduced lunch: 23.5%

BOTTOM FIVE LAUSD MIDDLE SCHOOLS ON CORE INDEX

Edwin Markham Middle (2015-16)
1650 E 104th St., Los Angeles 90002
CORE score: 23
Latino: 78%
African American: 21%
White: 0%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 29%
Students with disabilities: 17%
Free and reduced lunch: 88.2%

Samuel Gompers Middle (2015-16)
234 E 112th St, Los Angeles 90061
CORE score: 27
Latino: 62%
African American: 36%
White: 0%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 25%
Students with disabilities: 19%
Free and reduced lunch: 87.5%

Horace Mann Junior High (2015-16)
7001 S St Andrews Pl, Los Angeles, CA 90047
CORE Score: 28
Latino: 50%
African American: 21%
White: 0%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 29%
Students with disabilities: 17%
Free and reduced lunch: 82.4%

Thomas A Edison Middle (2015-16)
6500 Hooper Ave., Los Angeles 90001
CORE score: 28
Latino: 96%
African American: 4%
White: 0%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 25%
Students with disabilities: 12%
Free and reduced lunch: 98.5%

George Washington Carver Middle (2014-15)
4410 McKinley Ave., Los Angeles 90011
CORE score: 32
Latino: 91%
African American: 7.8%
White: 0.3%
Asian: 0.2%
English learners: 28.9%
Students with disabilities: not available
Free and reduced lunch: 91%

Coming next: The top and bottom LAUSD high schools. 

Below are breakdowns of LA Unified’s elementary schools with the highest and lowest scores.

The LA Unified schools with the five lowest scores — actually seven schools, as a few tied — are all located in South Los Angeles or San Pedro with students that come primarily from low-income households. Low performance on the Smarter Balanced standardized tests combined with high levels of chronic absenteeism and suspension rates were the most common factors that resulted in the low CORE scores.

The average number of students in the bottom five who met or exceeded the standards in the English Language Arts portion of the Smarter Balanced tests was 12.42 percent, and average who did so in the math portion was 8.71 percent. This compares to a district average of 33 percent for English and 25 percent for math, while the students at the top five schools averaged 78.66 percent in English and 75.88 in math.

The gulf was also wide in performance on absenteeism and suspension rates, where the lowest schools had an average 18.85 percent chronic absenteeism and 2.12 percent average suspensions, versus a 4.11 percent absenteeism average and 0.03 percent average suspensions for the top schools.

There are also big differences in the demographics of the top and bottom schools, with the bottom schools having an average English learner rate of 29 percent, versus 8.5 percent for the top schools. The bottom schools also had an average of 11.28 percent of students in special education, versus 6.4 percent for the top schools.

The CORE system is based on 60 percent academics and 40 percent for socio-emotional/culture-climate factors like absenteeism and suspensions. Were CORE numbers to be calculated again next year, the scores would also include factors for academic growth and the results of student surveys. As the data is from one year, growth is not measured.

• Read LA School Report’s analysis of CORE data for LAUSD schools.

• Why the CORE system was developed and why it is only temporary.

• Why charter schools aren’t included in the CORE data. 

Two of the bottom five schools — Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary and 107th Street Elementary — are part of the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, a nonprofit that manages 17 of LA Unified’s historically challenged schools in collaboration with the district, the City of Los Angeles and philanthropic organizations.

Luz Maria Castellanos, senior manager of external relations and communications for the Partnership, pointed out that while some of the organization’s schools struggled with the CORE evaluation, they still experienced significant growth and improvement.

Although Joyner’s Smarter Balanced scores were low, Castellanos said they represented growth compared to the school’s last performance on the California Standards Test, which was discontinued in 2014. Joyner also scored poorly on absenteeism and suspension, but Castellanos said the 2015-16 school year has seen improvements in these areas.

In addition, “Joyner has lots of qualitative evidence of transformation in school culture (feedback from staff and parents, etc.), which we believe will fuel further academic growth in this year’s (Smarter Balanced tests),” Castellatios said in an email. She also said this is the first year 107th Street has joined the Partnership “so this year will be the baseline year for SBAC performance under the Partnership’s direction.”

For a closer look at a few of the schools with the lowest scores, check out the slideshow for each school featuring some of the key data from its CORE score.

Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary School
1963 East 103rd Street
Los Angeles, 90002
CORE score: 15
CORE rank: 714 out of 714

Demographics
Latino: 67%
African American: 29%
White: 4%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 37%
Students with disabilities: 11%
Free and reduced lunch: 95% (2014-15)

Hillcrest Drive Elementary 
4041 Hillcrest Drive
Los Angeles, 90008
CORE score: 16
CORE rank: 713 out of 714

Demographics
Latino: 49%
African American: 46%
White: 2%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 34%
Students with disabilities: 13%
Free and reduced lunch: 81.3% (2014-15)

107th Street Elementary
147 East 107th St.
Los Angeles, 90003
CORE score: 16
CORE rank: 713 (tied) out of 714

Demographics
Latino: 73%
African American: 25%
White: 1%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 44%
Students with disabilities: 8%
Free and reduced lunch: 88.5% (2014-15)

Century Park Elementary 
10935 South Spinning Avenue
Inglewood, 90303
CORE score: 17
CORE rank: 712 out of 714

Demographics
Latino: 33%
African American: 65%
White: 1%
Asian: 0%
English learners: 17%
Students with disabilities: 11%
Free and reduced lunch: 83.8% (2014-15)

Three elementary schools tied for the fifth-lowest CORE score, which was 19. The three schools are Annalee Avenue Elementary, Barton Hill Elementary and Cabrillo Avenue Elementary.

TOP PERFORMING ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Of the LA Unified elementary schools with with the top five scores on the CORE index — there were nine overall due to some ties — the only perfect score of 100 was Balboa Gifted/High Ability Magnet Elementary, which is a magnet school for gifted students who must already be high-achieving students in order to gain admission.

Of the other schools, which all accept students from the general population, there was much more variety in location than the lowest performing schools. Several are from the San Fernando Valley and several are from the Westside where a much lower portion of students are not living in poverty compared to the district average. None of the top schools are from South LA or San Pedro, where all of the lowest performing schools are.

For a closer look at the top three schools serving the general population, check out the slideshow for each school featuring some of the key data from its CORE score.

Solano Avenue Elementary 
615 Solano Avenue
Los Angeles, 90012
CORE score: 99
CORE rank: 2nd (tied) out of 714

Demographics
Latino: 46%
African American: 2%
White: 3%
Asian: 45%
English learners: 18%
Students with disabilities: 7%
Free and reduced lunch: 68.9% (2014-15)

Clover Avenue Elementary
11020 Clover Avenue
Los Angeles, 90034
CORE score: 99
CORE rank: 2nd (tied) out of 714

Demographics
Latino: 16%
African American: 5%
White: 29%
Asian: 43%
English learners: 14%
Students with disabilities: 4%
Free and reduced lunch: 19.94% (2014-15)

Porter Ranch Community School
12450 Mason Avenue
Porter Ranch, 91326
CORE score: 99
CORE rank: 2nd (tied) out of 714

Demographics
Latino: 10%
African American: 4%
White: 34%
Asian: 47%
English learners: 9%
Students with disabilities: 6%
Free and reduced lunch: 10.8% (2014-15)

Six elementary schools tied for the third-highest score, which was 97. They are Woodland Hills Elementary Charter For Enriched Studies, Wonderland Avenue Elementary, Welby Way Elementary Charter, Roscomare Road Elementary, Clifford Street Elementary and Canyon Charter Elementary.

Coming next: the top and bottom middle schools. 

The School Quality Improvement Index, which was developed by the California Office to Reform Education (CORE), is a significant jump away from the Academic Performance Index (API), which was discontinued after 2013 as the state transitioned to the Common Core-aligned Smarter Balanced tests, which debuted last year.

To understand CORE more, LA School Report recently calculated the scores of all 714 LA Unified schools entered into the system and ranked them. (Charter schools are not included in the CORE data, but there are other ways to measure their performance.) Sixty percent of a school’s CORE score is based on academic performance, which includes performance on the Smarter Balanced tests as well as the graduation rate for high schools and high school readiness for middle schools. Forty percent is based on “socio-emotional/culture-climate” factors like suspension and absenteeism.

Every category that CORE takes into account gets a value of 1 through 10 or 1 through 30, and these different values add up to an overall score of 1 through 100, with 100 being the top score. The average score of all 714 LA Unified schools entered into CORE was 60. But the CORE scores aren’t a direct calculation of a school’s overall score in the smaller categories; they employ a complicated formula that also considers how high-needs students performed.

These high-needs students are broken into four subgroups: the lowest performing racial/ethnic subgroup, English learners, students with disabilities and socio-economically disadvantaged students. Giving true weight to how these students perform, and rewarding schools that excel in educating them, is a far cry from API, in which a school with few high-needs students was ranked on an equal plane against those with many high-needs students.

• Read LA School Report’s analysis of CORE data for LAUSD schools.

• Read more on why the CORE system was developed and why it is only temporary.

The state of California is currently developing its own system that will also move beyond just test scores and likely take into consideration high-needs students and other data like suspension rates.

The new federal education law passed last year, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), calls on states to develop accountability systems with criteria like this in mind. California’s own Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) law, signed in 2013, requires school districts to provide extra funding for high-needs students.

California’s eventual accountability system may use a different formula and lack a simple numerical ranking system in favor of a more “dashboard” approach with multiple rankings, but it must be in alignment with ESSA and will end up using much of the same criteria that CORE looks at, making CORE the first view of what such a system might look like, or at least how this new data can impact a school’s performance.

When Gov. Jerry Brown was pitching the LCFF to lawmakers in 2013, he said, “Growing up in Compton or Richmond is not like it is to grow up in Los Gatos or Beverly Hills or Piedmont. It is controversial, but it is right, and it’s fair.”

Brown could have just as easily been talking about the CORE system, as for the first time it is an accountability system that takes into consideration the extra challenges high-needs students face while rewarding schools that are able to overcome these challenges. As a result, a school with the highest test scores is not necessarily the highest scoring school on the CORE index.

Former LA Unified Superintendent Ramon Cortines, who stepped down in January, voiced his support for CORE’s approach, saying in December, “We have known for a long time that academic performance is one of many factors that make a great school, but CORE districts are now serving as a model for how we can actually measure these factors and look more holistically at school outcomes.”

Coming this week: A look at the top and bottom elementary, middle and high schools in LA Unified.

These conclusions were made following an LA School Report analysis of LA Unified schools evaluated by the California Office to Reform Education (CORE). While the accountability system was unveiled in February, CORE and LA Unified did not provide any analysis, but now you can see the average score for the district, the top and bottom schools and compare schools of similar types or similar sizes. The chart shows whether the school is elementary, middle or high school; the school’s CORE score, starting with the lowest scores; the population of the school, and the link to the school’s complete CORE assessment.

Without this analysis, all that could previously be learned was a school’s individual score without any perspective. Is Van Nuys High‘s score of 76 good, bad or average? Turns out it is good, or at least above average, since the average score was 60.17. The system works on a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the best.

A total of 714 LA Unified schools were entered into the CORE system. Independent charter schools were not included, nor were special education centers, early education centers, adult education centers and continuation schools, which are small schools that serve struggling students.

(MORE: 6 things to know about LAUSD’s new school accountability system)

Two schools — Balboa Gifted/High Ability Magnet Elementary and  Harbor Teacher Preparation Academy — scored a perfect 100, and three schools — Solano Avenue Elementary, Clover Avenue Elementary and Porter Ranch Community — scored a 99. (Click on the school to see its CORE report.)

On the bottom end of the scale, LA Unified’s lowest scoring school was Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary, which scored a 15. The other poorest performers were One Hundred Seventh Street Elementary (16), Hillcrest Drive Elementary (16), Century Park Elementary (17), Annalee Avenue Elementary (19), Barton Hill Elementary (19) and Cabrillo Avenue Elementary (19).

CORE takes a multilayered approach to ranking and evaluating schools. The new system is not just based off standardized test scores, like the old Academic Performance Index (API), but also incorporates new data like graduation rates, attendance rates, suspension rates and the performance of certain subgroups like English learners. The API system was discontinued after 2013 while the state converted to the Common Core-aligned Smarter Balanced tests, which began statewide in 2015.

California is in the process of developing a new accountability system that will satisfy the requirements of the new federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Some experts believe the state will use some of the same data used in the CORE system but not provide a single number to rank schools, instead using a “dashboard” of multiple results that would include numerical rankings. Under ESSA, the state must identify the bottom five percent of its schools for intervention, but it is unclear how the state will do so without a numerical ranking system.

Eliminating numerical rankings has been criticized by some groups who believe such rankings are key to improving the state’s schools. The California Charter Schools Association, for one, is not in favor the dashboard approach.

“CORE’s system of measuring multiple aspects of a school’s performance and student outcomes, which are then tabulated to create a single index, is thoughtful and comprehensive,” CCSA said in statement to LA School Report. “Unfortunately the state is moving toward a different system — a complex dashboard that allows a whole series of standards to be interpreted at the local level. This would create a climate of unequal treatment and uncertainty, instead of the clear, accessible, statewide standards that California public schools need. Families need these standards to understand how the schools in their communities are performing.

“To keep politics and personalities to a minimum, California needs accessible, consistent, transparent statewide academic standards that define how well we expect our schools to perform.”

The CORE index was developed by LA Unified and five other districts as part of a deal with the federal government. The districts banded together for the purpose of getting a much-desired waiver in 2013 from the stringent mandates of the No Child Left Behind law, and part of the waiver required them to develop a comprehensive way of evaluating and ranking schools. CORE became the first non-state to get a waiver.

As to why no district-wide analysis is being released, LA Unified provided the following statement: “Like CORE itself, LA Unified is not analyzing final results of the 2015 School Quality Improvement Index as this was the baseline year and we are still learning about the metrics and their implications. There is no district average, but individual schools may use their results to guide planning for next year. Because the index aligns with the district’s goals and is intended to support action, we believe this is an appropriate use of the numbers. In addition, with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we do not anticipate having scores next year.”

Opening up a school’s report reveals the inner workings of how the score was compiled. The overall score is based on a formula where 60 percent is for academic performance and 40 percent is for socio-emotional/culture climate factors. Individual categories are given a score of 1 through 10, which are then added up for an overall 1 through 100 score.

For Florence Griffith Joyner, the poor score was the result of criteria like high absenteeism over the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years, which was 21 percent and 25 percent, respectively. CORE ranks these percentages as a 1 out of 10. The school’s suspension rate of 2.33 percent and 4.67 percent over the two years earned it a 3 out of 10.

For performance on the 2015 Smarter Balanced standardized test scores, only 11 percent of Florence Griffith Joyner’s students met or exceeded English Language arts standards, and only 12 percent met or exceeded the math standards. These results were far below the district-wide average of 33 percent for English and 25 percent for math.

For Harbor Teacher Prep Academy, the perfect score was the result of factors like a 1 percent chronic absenteeism rate over the two years and a zero percent suspension rate. On the Smarter Balanced test scores, 83 percent of students met or exceeded the English standards and 81 percent met or exceeded the math standards.

One limitation to CORE’s data is that it did not separate out span schools, which include students from more than just elementary school, middle school or high school. A span school may have students from grades 6-12, but CORE only list schools as either an elementary school, middle school or high school. So a span school that includes middle school students and high school students is listed twice on the CORE list, but with the same scores and same student population, so the scores from the two age groups only count as one score. This would skew the overall average for all schools, as well as impact the individual score for a school listed twice.

Other noteworthy facts about the list include:

• The five lowest performing high schools are David Starr Jordan Senior High (22),  Early College Academy-LA Trade Tech College (23), Leadership in Entertainment and Media Arts (LEMA) (34), Dr. Maya Angelou Community High (37) and Augustus F. Hawkins High A Critical Design and Gaming (37).
• After Harbor Teacher Prep, the four top performing high schools are all magnet schools: Math, Science, & Technology Magnet Academy at Roosevelt High (98), Downtown Business High (97), Francisco Bravo Medical Magnet High (96) and King/Drew Medical Magnet High (96).
• After Balboa, Solano, Clover and Porter Ranch, the fifth-best ranking for elementary schools is a five-way tie with Wonderland Avenue Elementary (97), Welby Way Elementary Charter (97), Roscomare Road Elementary (97), Clifford Street Elementary (97) and Canyon Charter Elementary (97).
• The bottom five middle schools are Edwin Markham Middle (23), Loren Miller Elementary (26), Samuel Gompers Middle (27), Horace Mann Junior High (28) and  Thomas A. Edison Middle School (28).
• The top five middle schools are Alfred B. Nobel Charter Middle (91), Hesby Oaks Leadership Charter (90), Robert Frost Middle (89), Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies (88) and Paul Revere Charter Middle (87).

Simply put, it is not all about standardized test scores anymore, and the school with the highest scores may no longer be the highest ranked school under the new system.

Education leaders in the state and nation will be keeping a close eye on how the new system is received, as it is the first one to be created that fits the requirements of the new federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA.) Under ESSA, each state is required to implement a set of high-quality student academic assessments, and the developers of the California districts’ system said they hope it becomes a national model.

Here are six things you need to know about the new School Quality Improvement Index.

What is the School Quality Improvement Index?

The index was developed by LAUSD and five other districts — known together as the California Office to Reform Education (CORE) — as part of a deal with the federal government. (Technically there are nine districts in CORE, but for various reasons only six are participating in the new index system.)

The districts banded together for the purpose of getting a much-desired waiver in 2013 from the stringent mandates of the No Child Left Behind law, and part of the waiver required them to develop a comprehensive way of evaluating and ranking schools. CORE became the first non-state to get a waiver.

In CORE’s new system, a school with high test scores won’t necessarily be ranked the highest, like it was with California’s Academic Performance Index (API), which was discontinued in 2013 to give the state time to transfer over new Common Core-aligned standardized tests and develop a new accountability system. The state and LAUSD have operated without any annual accountability system since then.

“[The index] gives schools the ability to take a more complex, comprehensive look at what is going on in their school,” said John McDonald, a consultant to CORE. “And now you have schools that traditionally, if you were just looking at API, may have been at the very bottom. When you look at this index, those schools may not be in that bottom because you are looking at different indicators.”

So if the system is not only about test scores, what is it about?

While test scores still play a role, the CORE index also includes other factors that were not previously considered, like graduation rates, attendance rates, suspension rates and the performance of English learners. It will even include “social-emotional and culture-climate” factors that will come from student surveys. Overall, 60 percent of a school’s score is based on academics; the social-emotional and culture-climate factors account for 40 percent. The surveys are not yet part of the scoring system as they won’t be given until this fall, but everything else is currently part of the scoring system.

How do I find out my school’s score, and how is that score reached? 

Click here and search schools by name. The overall score is on the last page of each school’s report. The list includes 723 LAUSD schools, including traditional schools and affiliated charters but not independent charters. It also doesn’t include adult, continuation or special education schools.

The new index ranking system is user-friendly. Each subcategory is given a score of 1 though 10, and those scores are averaged out to give each school an overall single score of 1 through 100, with 100 being the top score.

For example, Harbor Teacher Prep Academy in Wilmington received a 100 out of 100 score. Panorama City Elementary received a 32, and Jefferson High in South LA received a 43.

Can I compare a school’s score to the district average to get some perspective? 

You can, but not without a calculator and several hours of your time. As of now, CORE is not providing any districtwide statistics, so the only way to know the average score of LAUSD’s schools is to add them all up and divide for the average. CORE will work to develop districtwide statistics to be available within the next year, according to Rick Miller, executive director of CORE.

Is the system here to stay?

No, it is not. Under ESSA, states are required by the 2017-18 school year to develop a new multi-layered accountability system that the CORE districts must also follow.

The new state system will be used by both the state and the feds, Miller said. Previously, the state used standardized test scores under API to rank schools while the feds used the Adequate Yearly Progress.

If the system is only temporary, what was the point in developing it?

For one, it was not clear in 2013 when Congress was going to rewrite the No Child Left Behind law, as the issue had been debated for years without much progress.

“There was no conventional wisdom that Congress would get its act together,” Miller said.

Also, since the CORE system satisfies the parameters of ESSA, it is possible the state will base its new system on CORE’s. Miller said that is the hope, and part of the motivation to develop the new index was to try to show the state what a comprehensive system could look like.

“We always knew it would be temporary and that the waiver would go away, so it was intended to be, ‘Here’s a model for the state and nation to think about as they look at multiple measures,'” Miller said.

But Miller said he is skeptical it can happen because the state does not have the ability to gather as much detailed data as CORE does.

“The concern we have is that the state won’t do this because they simply don’t have the data, they have very limited data at the state level. and so they are forced to do basic accountability based on the data they collect,” Miller said.

President Barack Obama

Los Angeles Unified and five other California school districts got welcome news today as the U.S. Department of Education extended their waiver from the No Child Left Behind law, giving them continued flexibility in how they spend millions to educate low-income students.

Known collectively as the California Office to Reform Education (CORE), the districts won the unprecedented waiver by demonstrating how they would use their federal Title I money to improve student achievement at low-performing schools.

Los Angeles Unified divided its Title I schools into six categories, ranging from Reward to Priority, with specific goals and strategies for helping to improve student achievement. These include summer school, in-school tutoring and other intervention programs and additional training for teachers and school leaders.

“As a direct result of the waiver extension, we are able to continue to invest in the students, teachers, and leaders of the Los Angeles Unified School District,” Superintendent Ramon Cortines said in a statement.

The announcement was included in a letter to the CORE districts from Ann Whalen, who oversees elementary and secondary education for the federal agency.

“My decision to renew approval of the CORE districts’ request is based on my determination that the waivers have been effective in enabling each of the CORE districts to carry out reforms to improve student achievement and that this extension is in the public interest,” she wrote. “With this renewal, the CORE districts will be able to continue implementing their plans to promote innovative, locally tailored strategies to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity and improve the quality of instruction.”

LA Unified met today’s deadline and filed an application for a No Child Left Behind waiver without one of the key requirements of the U.S. Department of Education — an agreement with the teachers union on a three-level teacher evaluation system.

If approved, the California Office to Reform Education (CORE) Waiver would clear the way for LA Unified to receive $171 million in federal funding.

While the absence of agreement with the union, UTLA, does not automatically disqualify the district or make it ineligible for federal dollars, Rick Miller, Executive Director of CORE, suggested today that the district’s incomplete proposal could jeopardize the district’s application.

“Non-compliance with this commitment, or any other commitment made in the School Quality Improvement plan, puts approval of the Waiver at risk,” he said in a statement.

In fact, Washington will not make final decisions on waivers for several more months, leaving open the possibility that LA Unified and UTLA could reach agreement within that time frame.

The union recognized as much today, issuing a statement late this afternoon saying, “UTLA is in continuing negotiations with the District and we see the CORE Waiver as one of many issues to be addressed in bargaining.”

Teacher evaluations have been part of the current contract negotiations between the district and the union, which are now in the hands of a federal mediator who is not scheduled to meet with the sides again until April 6 and April 15.

UTLA argues that a three-level evaluation system, one that would distinguish a “highly effective” teacher from those who merely meet standards or are below standard, paves the way for merit pay. The union is fighting to keep a two-level system in place.

LA Unified Superintendent Ramon Cortines addressed the issue in a letter to U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan earlier this month, writing that the “only obstacle to full compliance…is the long-standing contractual agreement with UTLA that provides only two levels of overall final performance evaluation.”

Cortines offered to fly to Washington D.C. with the president of the teachers union, Alex Caputo-Pearl, to discuss the matter with Duncan in person. It is unclear if Duncan responded to Cortines’ request.

But LA Unified is not unique in failing to meet the administration’s waiver requirements. Georgia’s State Superintendent is asking the feds for an extension to review the application while the state decides on the length of its renewal request. Idaho is also seeking an extension.

And it’s possible Louisiana will ask for a delay as the state’s legislative session conflicts with the waiver renewal timeline.

Closer to home, Santa Ana Unified skirted around the teacher evaluation issue by implementing a three-level system at a single pilot school, according to Deidra Powell, chief communications officer for the southern California district.

“We’re on board for trying it but it’s much easier to see if it works in one school than applying it all over the district,” she told LA School Report.

“This lets us comply with everything and get our application in on time,” she said.

*Adds statement from UTLA.

For weeks, Cortines has urged UTLA to accept a proposal with a three-level overall teacher evaluation system — one of several conditions of the California Office to Reform Education (CORE) Waiver program, that provides federal funding and allows districts to sidestep No Child Left Behind requirements. A two-level system had been in place through the 2012-2013 school year.

The deadline to submit the new CORE Waiver application is just days away, March 31.

But Hilary McLean, communications director for CORE, says the absence of an agreement on a three-tier system is not a deal breaker. Even without an agreement, “we believe that LAUSD will be in a position to submit an application,” she told LA School Report.

“This is also a somewhat iterative process,” McLean added, explaining that even after the district plans are submitted, “CORE is constantly in communication with the Department of Education so even as we meet certain deadlines on the calendar, we continue sharing information for their review purposes.”

The district will submit a proposal regardless of whether it can strike a deal with UTLA. But Cortines said in a statement today, “I think it’s important we do this together…It’s more powerful if we do it together.”

Teacher evaluations have been part of the current contract negotiations between the district and the union, which are now in the hands of a federal mediator who is not scheduled to meet with the sides again until April 6 and April 15.

Cortines addressed the issue in a letter to U.S. Department of Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, earlier this month, writing that the “only obstacle to full compliance…is the long-standing contractual agreement with UTLA that provides only two levels of overall final performance evaluation.”

In 2013, LA Unified imposed a new four-level system, but the union objected, arguing that such a system created a path to establish merit pay to reward the highest performing teachers. The union took the issue to the labor board, and a PERB judge agreed with UTLA that the district acted unlawfully and ordered the two sides to renegotiate the terms.

Despite that order, the sides have never reached agreement.

While LA Unified and five other California schools districts that are seeking the CORE waiver are compiling their own data for a proposal, they are all submitted by CORE as a bundle. The other districts are Fresno, Long Beach, Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Ana, and LA Unified.

The proposals are delivered at the same time, and McLean said the U.S. Department of Education assesses each application individually “so if one is not accepted it does not affect the others.”

A group of some of the largest school districts in California is launching an online bank of student assessment tools to help teachers measure learning as the rollout of the new Common Core curriculum gains speed this year.

The 60 “performance modules,” covering multiple grades for both English language arts and math instruction, are free online. They were developed by teachers, then field-tested in a pilot program with 15,000 students last year. (Click here for an overview).

The “Big 8” districts*, which include over one million students from some of the biggest districts in the state including Los Angeles, Long Beach and Fresno Unified — made headlines last year for carving out a special waiver from the mandates of No Child Left Behind, a Bush-era federal law that has been harshly criticized for its over-reliance on testing.

Because of the waiver, the group, known as CORE (California Office of Reform Education), will have a significantly different accountability system than that of other districts in the state, including plans to use student outcomes in teacher evaluations.

Governor Jerry Brown was turned down for a waiver for the entire state a year ago, in part because he refused to use similar accountability measurements, which could result in federal penalties for not complying.

*In all, ten member districts participated in the designing the assessment tools, but two, Garden Grove Unified and Clovis Unified were not included in the waiver. A full list of the ten CORE districts is here.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan called the panel “unique” among the waivers granted to 39 states and the District of Columbia.

“We went back and forth about how to have oversight and hold these districts accountable,” said Duncan. “The panel idea was a significant improvement from the system they first proposed.”

The 14-member oversight body will provide an “unbiased external compliance review” of each district’s progress after a series of self- and peer-evaluations.

The group includes a Governor’s appointee and a representative for administrators, school boards, superintendents, unions, parents, the civil rights community, English learners and disabled students.

In effect, compliance with the terms of the waiver will require agreement from factions that routinely disagree with each other to sign off on academic progress.

An oversight panel was not included in earlier versions of the waiver request. It was added after multiple revisions as a way to discourage dissent and win support from groups that might otherwise have objected to protocols of the wavier.

“We welcome this oversight board because we want to be very transparent,” said Long Beach Supt. Chris Steinhaus. “We put the oversight committee under the Brown Act so the work of the panel will be open to the public.”

The eight districts from California Office to Reform Education (CORE) include Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, Sanger and Santa Ana Unified School Districts. Altogether, they represent over 1 million students.

The waiver is being granted only for one school year, and no other district can join the eight in that span. After reviewing the first-year results, Department officials will decide whether to renew it for 2014-2015.

The education department will give the participating districts more flexibility and accountability in how they measure student performance and raise academic performance at the district level, as well as more realistic goals for students. This is the first time the Department has granted a waiver to a group of districts.

Duncan said no other district or group of districts have applied for a waiver, nor does he expect any other No Child Left Behind waivers to be granted to districts.

“Our strong preference is to work with states because it makes more sense and is much easier to manage,” said Duncan. “But this was a unique situation. We didn’t have an application from a state but this waiver affects so many children.”

*An earlier version said the panel included nine members.

Previous posts: ‘No Child’ Waiver OKd for LA Unified, 7 Other CA School Districts, Update: Federal Review “Going In the Right Direction” for LAUSD, Final Decision Close on CORE’s ‘No Child’ Waiver Request, Teachers Unions Oppose NCLB Waiver That the ‘CA 9′ Want

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan

The U.S. Department of Education today approved a long-awaited federal waiver that allows LA Unified and seven other California districts to replace No Child Left Behind accountability rules with their own school improvement system.

The waiver creates a unique 14-member oversight body to provide an “unbiased external compliance review” of each district’s progress after a series of self- and peer-evaluations. The group includes a Governor’s appointee and a representative for administrators, school boards, superintendents, unions, parents, the civil rights community, English learners and disabled students.

In effect, compliance with the terms of the waiver will require agreement from factions that routinely disagree with each other to sign off on academic progress.

An oversight panel was not included in earlier versions of the waiver request. It was added as a mechanism to discourage dissent and win support from groups that might otherwise have objected to protocols of the wavier.

Secretary Arne Duncan called the body “unique” among the waivers granted by the Department.

The eight districts from California Office to Reform Education (CORE) include Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, Sanger and Santa Ana Unified School Districts. Altogether, they represent over 1 million students.

The waiver will give participating districts more flexibility and accountability in how they measure student performance and raise academic performance at the district level, as well as more realistic goals for students. This is the first time the Department has granted a waiver to a group of districts.

Until now, 39 states and the District of Columbia have received waivers.

The new accountability system, known as the School Quality Improvement System, will also closely align with California’s new Local Control Funding Formula and the Common Core Standards.

The system will be fully in place by the 2015-16 school year. It measures school improvement by assessing graduation rates, suspension, expulsions and chronic absences; English learner improvement. It will also take into account surveys taken by parents, student and staff.

The No Child Left Behind law applies strict sanctions if certain educational goals are not met by 2014, such as limitations on Title I funding for low-income students and federal intervention in low-performing schools. The inability to meet the goals can also force a school to close.

The group’s waiver application has sparked controversy among other state superintendents, who see a district waiver as giving too much power to locally-run districts. Teacher unions have argued they were not consulted in deciding how to evaluate teachers.

Under the new system, educator and principal success will now be linked to student achievement, a hotly-contested method that was at the heart of disagreements with past California No Child waiver requests.

While each district will develop its own specifics and guidelines, each has to choose from two options that incorporate student growth as a significant factor when assessing teacher performance:

• Student growth integrated through a “trigger” system. With this option, an evaluation will be conducted using multiple measures, not including student achievement. The results will be compared to student achievement results. Any misalignment between teacher/administrator professional practice and student performance will initiate a dialogue to identify why a discrepancy between scores exists, followed by district action in the interest of professional development of the teacher.
• Student growth as a defined percentage. Student growth will represent a minimum of 20% of teacher and principal evaluation calculations. Student growth will be calculated using a growth model which will be developed by the CORE Board of Directors in the 2014-2015 school year. However, if a district currently uses or seeks to use another high quality student growth model, the district will have the opportunity to apply to the CORE Board for the option to use an alternative method, provided the district provides a strong research-based rationale.

CORE’s system also shrinks the number of students measured for subgroup performance from 100, which is California’s current law, to 20. By reducing the subgroup size across all participating districts, schools will be held accountable for reporting the progress of about 153,000 additional students who are mostly Latino, African American, English Learners, or students with disabilities.

CORE first submitted an application to the U.S. Department of Education in February with the hopes of getting it approved by the start of the 2013-14 school year. The group has been continuously going back and forth with D.C. officials, resubmitting the application multiple times after receiving feedback.

A few CORE representatives, including L.A. Unified Supt. John Deasy, flew to Washington earlier this month to speed up the review.

*An earlier version said the panel included nine members.

Previous posts: Update: Federal Review “Going In the Right Direction” for LAUSD, Final Decision Close on CORE’s ‘No Child’ Waiver Request, Teachers Unions Oppose NCLB Waiver That the ‘CA 9′ Want

It’s still a waiting game for LA Unified and eight other California school districts who have yet to hear if their revised No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver application will be given the thumbs up by the US Department of Education in Washington.

The nine districts, known as California Office to Reform Education (CORE), are still in the dark as to if and when they might be exempted from some of the more stringent requirements of the federal NCLB law that among other things requires all students to be proficient in English and math by 2014.

But spirits remain high.

The Obama administration continues to send positive signals about the process.

“If there are millions of kids and we could make a difference, then that’s something we have to look at,” said Joanne Weiss, chief of staff to Education Secretary Arne Duncan, in a recent EdWeek interview.

And, according to CORE, the plan to have the waiver accepted by the start of this upcoming school year is still very much in motion.

“We’ve been having less formal, ongoing conversations with the U.S. Department of Education” in recent weeks, Hilary McLean, CORE’s director of communications told LA School Report. “Things seem to be going in the right direction.”

California submitted an application for a state waiver back in January, but was rejected because it was unable to include provisions that linked teacher evaluations to student performance.

In May, State Schools Chief Tom Torlakson said that the state would not make any more attempts, saying that the standards were “too difficult” for a state of this size.

CORE first submitted an application to the U.S. Department of Education in February, marking the first time that school districts, not an entire state, submitted a unified proposal.

The CORE districts, consisting of Clovis, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, Sanger and Santa Ana Unified School Districts, represent 1.1 million students. Under its proposal, which was revised and re-submitted in May, the waiver would be extended to any other district or charter school system in the state that agrees to follow its guidelines.

As of this week, the US Department of Education is still looking over CORE’s proposed accountability system, known as the School Quality Improvement Index, which aims to create what CORE describes as more realistic goals for students and more flexibility to student performance regulations at the district level.

The State Department of Education would not comment on the nine school districts’ decision to pursue their own waiver, though Torlakson did say California remained “committed to local flexibility and decision-making.”

The U.S. Department of Education also had no updates on whether getting the goal approved by the upcoming school year was a possibility.

“We are still working with CORE on their waiver request,” said JoAnn Webb of the US Department of Education.

Despite concrete deadlines, the nine districts believe their new school improvement proposal will be replacing No Child Left Behind’s “narrow accountability rules” come September.

“It is a little bit of a waiting game and we are mindful of the ticking clock,” said McLean. “But we know the US Department of Education has to make sure everything is right.”

Previous posts: Reform Group Splits over Federal Waiver for LAUSD; Feds Want More Details from Waiver Application; District Waivers Worry State Education Chiefs

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan seems to be trying to turn over a new leaf with California Gov. Jerry Brown after years of tense disagreements, notes EdSource Today after Duncan praised Brown’s new funding formula at an event Friday night in San Francisco.

Even more immediately important for LAUSD, Duncan sounded sympathetic to the newly resubmitted No Child Left Behind waiver application request by a consortium of districts including LAUSD calling itself The California Office to Reform Education (CORE) to allow them to revamp school accountability ratings and free up federal funding.

“I think we have some really courageous superintendents who are trying to do the right thing, so we’ll continue to work through the details and go back and forth,” Duncan said of the CORE district application.

Previous posts: Feds Want More Details from Waiver Application;LAUSD Will Resubmit Federal Waiver Application – But Not State;Reform Group Splits over Federal Waiver for LAUSD