[Ken Marsh]

[size="2"][font="Arial"]THE FALL OF ROME
By Roger Nance (S56)

The Meeting

Several weeks ago, this old alum, along with about 100 other people attended a meeting at LA High. I was shocked to learn that the school is in danger of being shut down. All of us, old alums, parents, teachers, LA High and LAUSD administrators and interested parties from the community, faced the news with various degrees of disbelief, resignation, cynicism, and/or anger at LAUSD for their decisions in this matter.

The leader of the meeting was not a representative of the school system, but a volunteer who works with an NGO, facilitating communication between parents and personnel at city schools. He stepped up to the plate, so to speak, but seemed to have little inside knowledge of the situation. From what he did say, however, and from general discussion and statistical data handed out to us, we learned that the reason given for the closure is a perceived failure of the school to educate and graduate enough of its students. Over the last ten years, average student performance on standard tests given to all California high school students has been unacceptably low at LA High. There also has been a high drop-out rate at the school. Other statistics indicate possible reasons for these deficiencies: a sizeable proportion of students not fully conversant with the English language and a large percentage of students from families living below the poverty line.

The meeting, as it evolved, had no real structure. There were no prepared statements by teachers, the principal, or LAUSD representatives in attendance. One fact that did emerge, however, was LAUSD’s plan to transform LA High to a Charter School (or through an alternative reorganization plan approved by LAUSD) beginning next year. If the newly-restructured school fails to perform adequately, permanent closure will follow. Many in attendance expressed displeasure at this prescription, and several present were highly critical of the Charter option. One person suggested that poorly performing students would be expelled on the slightest pretext in order to raise test scores and thereby enhance the school’s viability. Only the LA High Principal, clearly an embattled lady, expressed any optimism. “Things can be turned around at LA High”, she said.

Several who identified themselves as LA High faculty blamed LAUSD, at least in part, for the school’s recent failures. One said that student performance has been adversely affected by the three-track teaching schedule in place for many years at LA High: instead of adhering to the traditional nine-month academic year, LA High has employed two three- to four-month instructional periods separated by a vacation. Another stated that LA High students had less time to prepare for the API test than was provided at other L.A. District schools. And, another commented on administrative instability. We learned that there have been eight different principals at LA High in the last ten years.

One subject of concern was the school’s changing enrollment area. Fifty years ago, the school’s enrollment area extended north of Third Street. Now, the northern boundary is set at Olympic Boulevard. Cross the street in front of the school, and you’ll find kids who attend a different public high school. Those of us who attended LA High have long known that there generally is an income/cost of housing gradient in this part of the city. The farther north one travels, the more affluent the residents. Moreover, we learned at this meeting that kids from isolated blocks, streets and enclaves with more expensive housing, but located south of Olympic, now attend other high schools. By isolating the poorest students within this otherwise heterogeneous region of Los Angeles, test scores were bound to fall.

How will the conversion of LA High to Charter status take place? Some of the faculty and administrators at LA High have formed a “Design Team” to create a corporation that will independently run the school. Other for-profit or not-for profit companies have been invited to submit a letter of interest in the same mission by the end of this month and a finished proposal by the end of the year. We were told that after a lengthy vetting process, including input from all concerned, the best proposal will be accepted. However, to date no experienced Charter company or any other entity has expressed itself ready to run the school. Given this general lack of interest from the outside and the apparent lack of enthusiasm for the Charter option by the campus community, the future does not look bright.

How to Lie with Statistics

When we look closely at statistical data handed out at the meeting, “School Report Card, 08-09: Los Angeles Senior High”, we are reminded of the classic book by Darrell Huff, How to Lie with Statistics (1954) and two questions he suggests we ask when we “talk back to statisticians”. These are, “What’s missing?” and “Does it make sense?”

First of all, what’s missing from the statistical profile of LA High? The most grievous omission is any sort of baseline. That is, what was the starting point for LA High’s students when they entered the ninth grade there? How well prepared were they for four years of high school? For any given class, what percentage of students had a solid, eight-year grade-school education? What percentage was illiterate and/or had no ciphering skills? Or, what percentage had the equivalent of a 4th-grade education, etc? It would be hard to believe that in this era of constant testing these data are not available. If we are to compare LA High’s performance to that of the LAUSD in general, the only fair way to do this is to view the performance (outcome) of each relative to its baseline.

There is another omission which we imagine could be easily corrected. Along with the LAUSD and the school administration, the LA High faculty might also share in the blame for the school’s supposed failure. At least a few of the old alums at the meeting thought so. One suggested that it wasn’t the faculty that they cared about, but what happened to the students. We all know that across the professions, including lawyers, teachers, and doctors, there are a few bad apples out there. We also know that it is not easy to get these people to cease their unprofessional activities. But there is one common way to assess the quality of any group of professionals; that is to look at their training and experience. What proportion of LA High teachers has permanent teaching credentials, and what proportion, temporary, and how does this compare in general to high school teachers across Los Angeles? What proportion of LA High math teachers has BA or BS degrees in mathematics, and how does this proportion compare to the city-wide statistic? Such summaries were not supplied in the LAUSD hand-out. One statistic did speak well of the LA High faculty. The school offered 18 advanced placement courses in 2008-2009. That’s 50% more than the LAUSD average of 12 per school.

What about the other question from Darrell Huff’s book, “Does it make sense”? Does it make sense, for example to average all student API (Academic Performance Index) test scores, when some students don’t speak English in the first place? Some of these students probably can’t understand the instructions printed on the first pages of their test booklets. Does it make sense to compare LA High, where 74% of students are economically disadvantaged, to all schools, where the composite disadvantaged percentage is much lower? How many other schools in the LAUSD have such a high percentage of low-income students, and how does LA High compare to those that do? Such a question might lead to a more realistic evaluation of LA High’s performance.

Finally, one thing to take away from a perusal of LA High’s “School Report Card” is the low performance of LAUSD as a whole. Across the district, only 52% of students graduate, for example. We can only wonder what the LAUSD would accomplish by shutting down LA High. Would bussing former LA High students through the traffic of L.A. to attend better-performing schools really improve their chances for a better education? Parents were at the meeting I attended, but few had anything to say. One mother did stand up and speak, her Spanish being translated for the majority of us. In effect, her plea was this: Save our neighborhood school.
[/font][/size]

[Bob Rashkin]

I wasn't at the meeting, for obvious reasons (I live out of state), and I'm grateful for the cogent synopsis and analysis. I'd like to add some empirical data, however poorly remembered. I graduated in 1968. While I had loudly held (if not particularly well reasoned) criticisms of the school and its policies (as well, it must be said, of all adults), I got a good education there. I was well prepared for college and while some of that may have been my own doing, surely much of it was LA High's, too. At that time, the student population was around 70% black, at least that was the number bandied around popularly. It was probably around 80% low-income. A large percentage (I don't know how many) were non-native English speakers (both Hispanic and Asian).

OK. 70% has become 90% or more. The other "unfavorable" demographics have probably increased. But I repeat: I got a good education and I'm sure I wasn't alone in that. Unless we're going to postulate some critical point: 70% black has no effect on education but 85% magically does; 80% poverty has no effect but 90% does; etc, those statistics do not tell the whole, or even much of a story. I don't know what but something besides demographics is responsible.