External Members Present:
Ms. Linda Guthrie, United Teachers Los Angeles
Mr. Dale McIntire, Retired, Division of Adult and Career Education
Dr. Judith Perez, Associated Administrators of Los Angeles-

- - -
The meeting convened at 10:08 a.m.-
- - -

ADOPTION OF THE EARLY LITERACY PROGRAM

Ms. Schroeder advised that on February 27, 2001, the Board of Education adopted the Early Education Improvement Plan. It was based on the vision that all children entering District kindergarten classrooms will have experienced a quality early education program. The mission of the program is to provide a high quality early education program to maximize school readiness.

The Early Education Improvement Plan is a five-year plan to restructure preschool programs for District students. It addresses six challenges which hindered the availability of quality preschool for children and builds a critically needed foundation for preschoolers success through seven goals and 28 recommendations. She addressed challenge 1, Preschool instruction is not aligned to kindergarten curriculum; goal 1, Preschool students are ready for kindergarten; and recommendation 2, Establish pilot programs to determine the most effective early literacy and math program.

Ms. Schroeder advised that "Building Language for Literacy" and "Let's Begin with the Letter People" were included in the Phase 1, First Step Early Literacy Pilot Program. Students in the pilot
programs consistently gained more points on subtests. Kindergarten Open Court assessment results were analyzed during Phase I, Second Step, which showed that both groups of students exceeded expectations.

During Phase II, new early literacy programs emerged and No Child Left Behind funding became available. Teachers as practitioners became the focal point for this phase, and six programs were identified for participation in the final phase (Creative Curriculum, DLM Express, Early Childhood Program, Letter People, Open Court PreK, and Ready, Set, Leap).

Ms. Schroeder reviewed the Early Education Improvement Plan criteria, the design of the program, and professional development for teachers, administrators, and advisers.

Dr. Pam Schiller, Author of the DML Early Childhood Express, discussed the main components of the program. The DLM Early Childhood Express is research-based; it is a comprehensive program; it implements developmentally appropriate practices with high expectations for both teachers and children; it meets the needs of all learners; and provides a strong professional development plan to ensure success.

Ms. Schroeder, Dr. Schiller, and Dr. Alexander responded to questions raised by the Committee.

SUBMISSION OF PART 1 OF THE CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Ms. Lockert presented a draft communication proposing submission of Part I of the 2004-2005 Consolidated Application for Funding Categorical Aid Programs. Each year, the District submits a two-part application to the California Department of Education for selected categorical programs. Part I of the Consolidated Application is submitted in June and Part II in November.

Ms. Lockert responded to questions raised by the Committee.

Mr. Lauritzen, Ms. Korenstein, and Ms. LaMotte voted to place this item on the Receipt Calendar for the Board of Education meeting on June 8, 2004.

MONITORING THE BLUEPRINT FOR IMPLEMENTING THE ACTION PLAN FOR A CULTURALLY RELEVANT EDUCATION THAT BENEFITS AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS AND ALL OTHER STUDENTS‹MONITORING REPORTS 1 AND 2

Ms. LaMotte advised that former Board Member Genethia Hudley Hayes was the author of the African American Learners Initiative Action Plan which was adopted by the Board of Education in June 2001. It authorized the development of an Action Plan to address the needs of African American and other students.

Dr. Floraline Stevens, representing her company, Floraline I. Stevens and Associates, advised that the monitoring reports were written to inform the District's policymakers, administrators, and their staff about the implementation of the Action Plan for a Culturally Relevant Education That Benefits African American Students and All Other Students.

Dr. Stevens pointed out that monitoring is not the same as evaluation. It is a transparent operation in that all participants know in advance what to expect. Dr. Stevens did not investigate or report the quality of the District's efforts to implement the Action Plan. This is the responsibility of the Program Evaluation and Research Division. Dr. Stevens' task is to report whether or not certain important aspects and action steps of the Action Plan are being implemented or in the process of being implemented.

Dr. Stevens was contracted to make five reports by the end of December 2004. Monitoring Report 1 was submitted at the end of January 2004. It looked at the implementation activities of the District's top central office and local district administrators and their staff. Monitoring Report 2 was submitted at the end of April 2004. It looked first at the perceptions of stakeholder community groups about the implementation of the Action Plan and second at the implementation activities of the District's professional development providers.

The findings showed inconsistencies in the implementation of the Action Plan among different stakeholders in the District. The report found that central office administrators and most Local District Superintendents are well grounded in what is a culturally relevant classroom environment and what are culturally relevant teaching behaviors. The report noted a reluctance by a few to acknowledge that African American students may need different attention than other students.

Monitoring Report 1 showed that there was sufficient evidence of implementation for central office administrators but concluded that there was only partial evidence of implementation among Local District Superintendents. The report indicated that there is not enough awareness of the Action Plan and its concepts among Local District office staff, teachers and school administrators.

In the first section of Monitoring Report 2, parents/guardians and community group leaders, political action group leaders and local political leaders reported their efforts to support the implementation of the District's Action Plan. The second section addressed professional development of the elements of the plan.

Dr. Stevens unveiled a lengthy set of findings and corrective actions designed to improve implementation efforts across the District. Among the recommendations is a public statement in support of the Action Plan by Superintendent Romer, a compliance mandate with consequences for those District staffers who do not do what they are responsible for in the plan and improved communications about the Action Plan to all District personnel, parents/guardians and community groups.

The report also called for an investigation into the high number of referrals and placement of African American male students in Special Education. It identified the need for a professional development component that provides teachers, especially at the elementary level, with sufficient time for ongoing professional development. It also called for support from United Teachers Los Angeles to plan and work cooperatively with the District in implementing the Action Plan.

Mr. Price advised that there were three resolutions related to closing the achievement gap. In June 2001, former Board Member Hayes' resolution to develop the Action Plan was adopted. In December 2002, a resolution by Mr. Huizar, Ms. Hayes, and Mr. Tokofsky was adopted which expanded the closing of the achievement gap initiative to specifically address the needs of Latino and African American students and embed culturally responsive pedagogy into all District initiatives. On June 24, 2003, the Board adopted a resolution to continue to support full implementation and monitoring of the African American Learners Initiative Action Plan.

Mr. Price stressed that the District is taking measures to address closing the achievement gap by focusing on high quality professional development in District initiatives to embed culturally responsive and relevant education (CRRE) in every classroom; developing powerful instructional strategies on CRRE with instructional guides to be distributed to teachers and administrators; and improving communication about the achievement gap and CRRE through Superintendent's messages, Channel 58 programming, the District website, and media releases.

Dr. LeMoine shared the Division of Instruction's response to Recommendation No. 5 of Monitoring Report 1. The recommendation requests that the Office of Instruction take the leadership role in bringing together information from all sources in the District and to produce a document and plan for the entire District and how to embed them into the current curriculum.

Dr. LeMoine provided the Committee with a copy of a document entitled "Instructional Guide: Culturally Relevant and Responsive Pedagogy." The guide represents the District's effort to give practical application to the theoretical concepts and investigation of scholars who have studied and researched culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy and its role in increasing achievement outcomes for African American and other underachieving students.

Dr. Baker talked about how the District is embedding culturally relevant and responsive education into its literacy curriculum.

Dr. Sylvia Rousseau, Local District I Superintendent, shared the actions she has taken to implement culturally relevant and responsive teaching and learning.

Ms. LaMotte suggested that each Local District Superintendent make a presentation at the next Committee meeting.

Dr. Ott, Mr. Price, and Dr. Stevens responded to questions raised by the Committee.

SPEAKERS

Ms. Kathleen Mooney, a parent, expressed her views on the African American Learners Initiative.

Ms. Lorena Jaramillo, a parent, expressed her views on the African American Learners Initiative.

Due to time constraints, the following items were not discussed:

SB 1795 (Alarcon) - High Performance High School Act

Evaluation of the Los Angeles Urban Systemic Program 2002-2003

Program Evaluation and Research Branch Staff Response to the Los Angeles Urban Systemic Program Evaluation

REVISED

Committee Members Superintendent's Representatives
Jon Lauritzen, Chairperson Maria G. Ott, Ph.D.
Marlene Canter Sr. Deputy Superintendent, Educational Services
Julie Korenstein Merle Price
Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte Deputy Superintendent, Instructional Services
Linda Guthrie, United Teachers Los Angeles Jean Brown
Judith Perez, Associated Administrators of Los Angeles Assistant Superintendent, Instructional Support Services
Dale McIntire, Retired DACE James Morris, Ed.D.
Assistant Superintendent, Instructional Support Services
L. Bud Jacobs, Acting Assistant Superintendent
Instructional Support Services
Santiago Jackson, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent, Division of Adult
and Career Education

AGENDA

PRESENTATION DISCUSSION
INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES PRESENTERS TIME TIME

1. Adoption of the Early Literacy Program Carmen N. Schroeder 20 Min. 10 Min.
Program for Early Education Programs Assistant Superintendent

2. Submission of Part I of the Consolidated Barbara Lockert 10 Min. 10 Min.
Application to the California Department Director
of Education

3. Monitoring Reports 1 & 2 - Monitoring the Marguerite LaMotte 40 Min. 40 Min.
Blueprint for Implementing the Action Plan Board Member
for a Culturally Relevant Education that Dr. Floraline I. Stevens
Benefits African American Students and All Program Evaluator
Other Students Merle Price
Deputy Superintendent
Dr. Noma LeMoine
Director
Dr. Sylvia Rousseau
Superintendent, Local District I

4. SB 1795 (Alarcon) - High Performance Peggy Barber 5 Min. 15 Min.
High School Act Coordinator, Legislation

5. Evaluation of the Los Angeles Dr. Kimberle Kelly 5 Min.
Urban Systemic Program 2002-2003 Project Director

Program Evaluation and Research Branch Dr. Todd Ullah 5 Min. 10 Min.
Staff Response to LA-USP Evaluation Director

"The Committee may consider and act upon motions, Board Reports, or other business referred to it
by the Board of Education or Committee of the Whole, with respect to any properly posted matter at
a meeting immediately preceding the Committee meeting, where the time between that meeting and this
Committee meeting is less than 72 hours. Members of the public are encouraged to review the order
of business or agenda for the meeting of the Board of Education Committee of the Whole."