The Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) is part of the California funding model for education. East Side Union High School District (ESUHSD) must create a plan that allocates part of its annual revenues (around $25 million of a budget with revenues of over $350 million) to improving outcomes for the following three student populations: English Language Learners, Low-income, and Homeless/Foster Youth. A new component of the LCAP is that districts must be able to demonstrate that their investments are working.
The ESUHSD Board-approved LCAP for the 2024-25 school year has the same basic investments as the LCAP from 2023-24. These investments follow from policies, programs, and practices in which the Superintendent finds value. This article will attempt to show that some of these district policies, programs, and practices are returning questionable value, and that, despite the need to maintain at least some of the current allocations, alternative investments would increase the likelihood of moving student outcomes in the targeted populations.
Moreover, this article will attempt to show the value of re-convening the former LCAP Advisory Committee, with its annual series of meetings exploring the perspectives of diverse stakeholders (including board members) through in-depth discussions of what it means to address the needs of all our students.
The ESUHSD LCAP has 6 Goals. The following commentary will analyze, in part, the first five LCAP goals. The sixth goal is new and has insufficient data for any in depth analysis.
Goal 1: College and Career Readiness
Goal 1 allocates approximately $13 million of the LCAP to various positions. The available data within the LCAP and the reasoning provided by the Superintendent paints a dubious picture regarding the effectiveness of some of these positions/actions. The Superintendent claims district actions to be “effective as evidenced by our slight growth in the percentage of students deemed college and career ready and the percentage of students completing the UC A-G requirements. We saw a growth from 47.9% to 48.4% as measured by CA Dashboard during the 3-year period. Although a small growth during the three-year period, our work to implement MTSS must continue as the MTSS framework is evidence-based and if implemented to fidelity, has potential for greater impact on our metrics.”
UC/CSU Course Completion Rates
It is true that the data shows a growth from 47.9% to 48.4% in the stated category. However, a deeper look reveals that, at best, we have no clear data that indicates the actions have been effective. To start, a .5% change is effectively no change, and the slight increase cannot be attributed to any one thing. Furthermore, most of the categories have seen decreases. For example, if we look at UC/CSU Course Completion Rates by Ethnicity, we see that, although the total rate has increased from 52.8% to 54.4% (which is good), those gains have not occurred from most of the populations targeted within the LCAP.
When compared against the baseline provided in the LCAP, the African American course completion rate dropped from 33.3% in 2019 to 31.9% in 2023. Hispanic/Latino students saw a similar decrease in the same category, dropping from 32.3% in 2019 to 30.4% while Asian students increased from 73.4% to 77%. And although we see an increase in completion from English Learners from 22.1% to 26.3%, we see drops in all other programs (Foster Youth [1.7%], Socioeconomically disadvantaged [1.3%], Students with Disabilities [5%], and Homeless Youth [4.3%]).
Perhaps the most telling data on this comes from the On Track For A-G Course Completion by grade level. This data measures how many students fail A-G courses. The lower the percentage, the more students fail A-G courses.
In 2019 the On Track rate for Freshman was 55%. In 2023 the On Track rate was 49% with decreases in every ethnic category, Hispanic/Latino and African American decreasing the most from 30% and 38% respectively to 22% and 30%. The same holds true when we look at Sophomores and Juniors (all ethnic groups see decreases). The data shows mostly the same when we look at A-G completion rates based on program. English Learners and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students saw only decreases across all grade levels with Freshman Students with Disabilities increasing from 6% to 7% and remaining the same for Sophomores and Juniors.
When we look at testing metrics like the SBAC state testing in Math and English, we see all identified populations significantly decrease in performance. The rate at which African American students Met or Exceeded the SBAC standards in ELA and Math fell from 60% and 27% respectively in 2019 to 52% and 17% in 2023. Over the same time span, Hispanic students dropped from 54% in ELA and 25% in Math to 43% and 11% respectively. Socioeconomically disadvantaged students fell from 61% in ELA and 37% in Math to 49% and 21% respectively. English Learners fell from 17% in English and 18% in Math to 12% and 5% respectively. And Students with Disabilities fell from 24% in ELA and 14% in Math to 17% and 3% respectively.
At the same time, LCAP data indicates that students who score 3 or higher on AP exams or 4 or higher on IB exams have overall increased from 2019 to 2023, rising from 54.7% to 57%. Asian students saw an increase from 65.1% to 68.4%. Hispanic/Latino students dropped slightly from 38% to 37% while African American students increased from 15.5% to 22.4%. The other three categories (English Learners, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged, and Students with Disabilities) saw decreases, with students with disabilities decreasing the most from 25.9% to 15.7%.
Career Technical Education (CTE)
The Superintendent also claims the district actions to be effective because “the number of students enrolled in Career Education courses has grown in both our district-offered courses and in those offered by our partner, Silicon Valley Career Technical Education (SVCTE).” This is an odd claim given that the district allocates effectively no LCAP funds to promote CTE pathways, despite “career” being one of the targeted goals. ESUHSD does have separate CTE revenues expended for these purposes.
Over the past three years, ESUHSD has spent approximately $2 million a year on internal CTE programming (2023/24: $2,035,824; 2022/23: $1,941,064; 2021/22: $2,232,200). This funding came from two grants: CTEIG and Strong Force. Unfortunately, these grants are not consistent, and one of them may not be continued going forward. ESUHSD did receive another grant of approximately $2 million, with $1.5 million allocated for the 2024-25 school year.
This funding helps support 28 pathways that fall under 5 general sections: Business (4), Computer Science (2), Health and Human Services (8), Multimedia (6), Industrial Technology (9). Nine ESUHSD high schools have at least one pathway: Andrew Hill (3), Evergreen (2), Independence (6), Mt. Pleasant (2), Oak Grove (2), Overfelt (4), Piedmont (3), Santa Teresa (2), Silver Creek (1), Yerba Buena (3). James Lick, Calero, Foothill, Apollo, Pegasus, and Phoenix have none.
The LCAP can help create and bolster CTE pathways at our schools. Annually, ESUHSD spends approximately $6 million a year to send 500-600 of our Juniors and Seniors to Silicon Valley Career Technical Education. SVCTE takes more than 2/3 of a student’s ADA and we only offer this program to 500-600 of our Juniors and Seniors (out of about 10,000, which is only around 6%). In no way do I advocate ending this funding. The point is that the demand for such programming seems to significantly exceed the supply. The LCAP can offer a more reliable revenue source for key CTE programs that tap into pathways of interest to our students, especially those targeted within the three key LCAP student populations.
The growth of students enrolled in Career Technical Education suggests a desire for more programs that support such pathways. Interestingly, when we look at the percent of pupils who have successfully completed both UC/CSU and CTE pathways, we see increases across the board from 2019 to 2023. African Americans increased from 3.4% to 4.3%. Hispanics increased from 3.2 to 6.1. Asians increased from 7.6% to 14.6%. English Learners increased from 1.7% to 3.2%. Socioeconomically Disadvantaged increased from 4.7% to 8.4%. And Students with Disabilities increased from 0.6% to 0.8%. We also saw 3,620 students enrolled in CTE pathways in 2019 and 363 students completed the program (a rate of about 10%). In 2023, 4,292 students enrolled in CTE pathways with 484 students completing the program (a rate of about 11%).
It would be interesting to see the ethnic and programmatic breakdown of these students just like we have with the other metrics as well as the growth or shrinkage of various CTE programs to measure which ones attract students and which ones present a greater challenge for completion (any why that may be). Roughly 30% of ESUHSD graduating students go on to achieve either a 2-year or 4-year college degree within six years of completing high school (less than half of those who attend college). Roughly half of the students who drop out of college attend more than one year, which suggests many have accumulated debt. Since roughly 70% of ESUHSD students do not complete either 2-years or 4-years of college, they should have access to other opportunities. Since these CTE programs see increases, we may want to seriously consider expanding them across our schools, given that one of the district’s mottos is to “meet students where they are.”
Students With Disabilities
Concerning students with disabilities, the district claims that their actions have been “effective as noted by the sight [sic] increase on the College and Career Indicator and in the increase in access to a broad course of study as indicated by placement in students’ Least Restrictive Environment. We show a growth from our baseline of 9.4% in students’ LRE placement. Although our Students with Disabilities have not shown growth in the A-G completion rate, it is important to continue with these actions as our initial efforts were focused on opening access to general education courses for our students with disabilities which was not happening in previous years.”
The UC/CSU AG Course Completion Rate for Students with Disabilities decreased with 2019 seeing a rate of 13.3% and 2023 seeing a rate of 8.3%. Even our Local Cohort saw a decrease from 9.5% in 2019 to 5% in 2023. The On Track data remained mostly static, with the Freshman rate increasing 1% from 6% in 2019 to 7% in 2023 and both Sophomore and Junior rates remaining the same at 2% and 1% respectively. The SBAC scores show that Students with Disabilities dropped significantly from 24% meeting or exceeding the ELA standard in 2019 to 17% in 2023; and similarly, a drop in Math, with 14% of students meeting or exceeding the standard in 2019 compared to only 3% in 2023. And if we look at AP courses, we see a significant decrease in the performance of Students with Disabilities. In 2019, 25.9% of Students with Disabilities scored 3 or higher on the AP test or 4 or higher on the IB test. In 2023, the percentage dropped to 15.7%.
Moreover, to say that a growth of 9.4% in a student’s Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is a success is to assume that a placement itself is a goal. For the past several years the district has pushed hard to get more Students with Disabilities placed in the General Education classroom. The data above not only suggests that this policy is dubious at best, but the actual push runs close to violating the spirit of US Code 1414 of Title 20.
LRE has at least two important meanings. In one sense, the LRE is, by definition, within a general education classroom with no supports. In this sense, the LRE exists on one side of a spectrum, with the most restricted environment being something like a specialty school or at home. In another sense, the LRE is a fluid placement that is determined by an IEP team to be the environment best suited for a student to learn.
The LRE for any given student can be anywhere on the LRE spectrum. Since this placement can only be determined after a careful evaluation of multiple factors, and only with all members of the IEP team empowered to voice their interpretations and evaluations, we should not have goals that presume one placement is better than another. If the district means what they say and intend to actually “meet students where they are”, then their primary focus should be to place students appropriately and not assume beforehand one way or another where a student’s LRE should be.
Goal 2: Graduation Rate
Goal 2 allocates approximately $10 million within the LCAP to various positions. The available data within the LCAP and the reasoning provided by the Superintendent suggests their stated successes overlook a far larger systemic problem: students failing classes at higher rates than years previous.
The Superintendent claims that the credit recovery actions taken in Goal 2 have been “effective as evidenced by a slight increase in our local graduation data as well as an increase from 43% to 60% in the graduation rate of our Foster Youth” as well as “a decline in our dropout rates from 6.5% to 5.8%.”
The graduation rate did increase slightly from the 2019 baseline of 86.4% to 87%. Also, the credit recovery programs seemed to have had a positive impact on student graduation and should be continued given the need. However, credit recovery implies that students fail classes. Not only are higher fail rates implied, but the stats also bare out the fact. On Track rates measure the degree to which students fail their classes, specifically those that require they use credit recovery programs as listed in this LCAP.
For 2019, 69% of Freshman were On Track for graduation. This percentage dropped to 64% in 2023 with Asian students dropping 2%, Hispanic/Latino students dropping 7%, African American students dropping 6%, English Learners dropping 7%, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students dropping 7%, and Students with Disabilities dropping 8%.
For 2019, 63% of Sophomores were On Track for graduation. This percentage dropped to 60% in 2023 with Asian students seeing no change, Hispanic/Latino students dropping 3%, African American students dropping 5%, English Learners dropping 4%, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students dropping 5%, and Students with Disabilities dropping 1%.
For 2019, 59% of Juniors were On Track for graduation. This percentage dropped to 53% in 2023 with Asian students dropping 6%, Hispanic/Latino students dropping 5%, African American students dropping 6%, English Learners dropping 8%, Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students dropping 10%, and Students with Disabilities dropping 6%.
Although credit recovery programs aid in student graduation rates, we should not simply look at our increased graduation rates as a positive given the nature of how more students are graduating. The credit recovery options do not compare in quality to that of a regular classroom during the school year. The credit recovery programs are better than not having them but offering more appealing programs and placing students appropriately may be more fruitful in helping our lowest performing students.
Moreover, the district’s current evaluation on the APTS (4th admin) that it “has improved our use of data to identify students within our target student groups in need of additional academic support and provide the interventions needed” should be taken skeptically given the previous evaluations offered by the district of the LCAP.
Not only does the district present no data to support the assertion, but the use of Shape and Illuminate may better explain any improved use of data, as these programs, with a single click, generate a list of students struggling the most. All staff can use this data (classroom teachers do not really require the data because they know which students struggle within their classes). But the use of Shape and Illuminate data can indeed aid school counselors and others in checking in with the most struggling students. However, questions remain:
What is the degree to which the use of this data improved outcomes with the most struggling students (or any student)?
What prevents traditional non-classroom staff positions from using this Shape and Illuminate data without an additional administrator?
Also, the district cited a 4% increase in families responding favorably to feeling connected to schools, up to 91%. This is great, but more data would be helpful. How many families responded by year would indicate the extensiveness of the sentiment, and tying the responses to the various categories within the LCAP would better indicate the range of sentiments within various LCAP groups. Without this, it’s difficult to interpret this 91% favorability rating when taken with the fact that more of our students are failing classes.
Goal 3: Achievement of English Language Learners
Goal 3 allocates approximately $3.5 million within the LCAP to various positions. As with Goal 2, the data found within Goal 3 shows a mixed picture. The successes seem to concentrate with the higher achieving English Learners. Although the rate of English Learners who scored a 3 or higher on the AP exam or a 4 or higher on the IB exam lowered from 2019 to 2023, from 26.1% to 24.4%, this decrease looked at with the AP population of English Learners increasing from 9.5% to 24.4% over the same time suggests that more higher achieving English Learners have benefited from higher-level General Education classes.
However, we have no clear data that indicates the same for the lowest achieving English Learners. Although the local cohort of English Learners saw an increase in their graduation rate from 86.2% to 91.4%, we see decreases across all grade levels for On Track rates. From 2019 to 2023, On Track graduation rates for Freshman English Learners dropped 7%, from 45% to 38%. Sophomore English Learners dropped 4%, from 35% to 31%. And Juniors dropped 8%, from 33% to 25%. This suggests that the increase in graduation stems from an increased use in credit recovery programs tied to Actions 1, 2, and 3 of Goal 2. During this time, English Learners who attained English Proficiency as measured by an ELPAC overall score of 4 decreased from 20.4% in 2020-21 to 15.9% in 2022-23. The English Learner reclassification rate also dropped from 2020-21 to 2022-23 by 4.4%, from 11.8% to 7.4%.
So, we see two things at odds with each other: English Learners are failing their classes at higher rates while their graduation rates improve. This is likely for two main reasons: 1) many of our English Learners take credit recovery options after they fail a class and 2) some of our English Learners are taking credit recovery classes as a substitute for the classroom course. It is unclear just how many of our English Learners have taken a credit recovery course as their primary option, but such information should be available by a schedule analysis.
Over this time, ESUHSD has hired more Para Educators, increasing their numbers from 2019-20 to 2020-21 by about 25. When the district presents this as a success by referencing 57% of English Learners responded favorably to “feeling happy at school” compared to 54% of “all other students,” it’s unclear how this suggests a success. Clearly that indicates a relative success, but it seems like 57% is rather low. This means that nearly 1 of every 2 students did not respond favorably. Do we know why? Do we know the sample size? And do we know that the cause of those responding favorably and unfavorably?
Goal 4: Behavior Response
The metrics used to claim that practices, policies, and personnel have succeeded with Goal 4 are dubious at best. One major problem with the district’s metrics is that they use the metric as the goal. For example, the district claims success because suspension rates have fallen for Foster Youth, Homeless Youth, and Students with Disabilities. This metric in no way tells us if the behaviors that previously resulted in suspension decreased. If we are tracking our behavior responses for any reason, that reason should be to both prevent such behavior and promote an educational environment conducive to learning.
The same goes for the reduction in discipline referrals for defiance. Over the previous 5-10 years, the district has pressured staff to reduce such referrals and suspensions. So, we should be skeptical of this data pointing to any kind of success, especially one resulting from an intentional plan, when we talk about student behavior (especially when, despite past district attempts to curtail suspensions and referrals, we see an increase in both despite declining enrollment and higher rates of chronic absenteeism).
Another dubious use of data is to claim that the School Climate survey results suggest a success. Although 79% of students responded positively to having supportive relationships on campus, Panorama Survey data shows a potentially troubling trend. When asked if students feel connected to school and a sense of belonging, only 53% of students in the fall of 2023 responded positively, down 14% from 2019, with all grade levels seeing noticeable decreases (Freshman was the highest, dropping from 74% to 56%).
At the same time, when responding to feeling connected to an adult at school, the numbers increased across all grade levels from 16% in 2019 to 24% in 2023, with Juniors seeing the biggest increase from 15% to 25%. At first glance one may be tempted to tout these last figures as a success, but the statistics may suggest that one of the reasons students are feeling more connected to an adult on campus is because students are feeling less connected to each other, which causes them to reach out to adults on campus. (Another important question is to look at how many total students responded year by year, which is not available in the LCAP).
In defending their practices in Area 1, the district claims that the “restorative reentry model” has “allowed us to minimize any major safety concerns while also supporting the needs of our students.” This was written in a year with major safety concerns, none larger than the stabbing on the James Lick campus. This unsupported claim comes across as a rhetorical device given that the district provides no evidentiary backing.
The same follows when the district claims that “the work of our 9th grade transition program (action 5) is essential to providing academic and behavioral support to our incoming 9th graders identified as requiring transition assistance and has contributed to the positive outcomes as indicated above.” The district provides no evidence to support this claim.
When we look at all the previous data (Lower On-Track A-G, lower On-Track Graduation, lower rates of Freshman Connectedness and Belonging, increased Absenteeism, and other indicators), we only see indications that the current model isn’t working. Instead of a transition program aimed at supporting students severely below grade level in grade-level courses, we may want to consider “meeting students where they are” and offer them programmatic offerings that meet their academic level.
Lastly, although I agree with the district that “our ability to collect and analyze qualitative data, relies on having a tool to do so,” that tool must in return offer data that staff can use. The biggest problem with tools such as the Panorama Survey is the language used on the questions. One need only look through the questions to see the problems, but here is one example. Students were asked in a single question if they both knew discipline processes and were treated fairly.
First, when a survey asks two questions in one, it leaves the interpreter wondering which question the student responds to, or to which degree the response is skewed by mixed feelings. Second, when questions ask about their feelings of fair treatment, some students may respond negatively to feeling that the discipline policies are fair because they see the same student smoking in the bathroom day after day without repercussions. In other words, the questions are overly vague to discern a clear meaning. The point of this paragraph is not to do away with data, but to make sure that the questions are framed in a way that minimizes ambiguity so any potential use increases.
Goal 5: Attendance
The district acknowledges that schools are not making progress toward increasing student attendance. However, this is an understatement.
The Chronic Absentee rate has increased 10.7% between 2019 and 2023, rising from 13.2% to 23.9%. Over this time, African American rates increased from 19.8% to 35.6%. Hispanic/Latino rates increased from 20.3% to 37.2%. Asian students increased from 4.3% to 7.9%. English Learners increased from 18.8% to 35.6%. Foster Youth increased from 37.1% to 59.6%. Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students raised from 16.9% to 35.1%. And Students with Disabilities raised from 29.3% to 44%.
Yet, despite these dramatic increases, the district claims that, “Although our data indicates we continue to struggle with attendance outcomes, the action items listed within this goal, aligned with our day-to-day attendance work, and implemented to fidelity, will result in improved outcomes for our students.” For every piece of purported evidence that the Superintendent provides to support the district’s current philosophical and policy approach, many more pieces of evidence suggest that said approach returns diminishing marginal utility and needs adjusting.
Concluding Thoughts
One data point, more than any other, seems to suggest root causes of the ethnic and programmatic outcome differences: chronic absenteeism. All our lowest performing students are also the ones with the highest absentee rates. Superintendent Marquez and Director Adalat have both stated at public board meetings that they believe the classroom is the most important place for students, that the most noticeable changes in student outcomes will result from what happens in the classrooms. Everyone agrees on that. We disagree on how best to get students to the classroom and promote the best educational environment for all students.
One approach is to hire millions of dollars’ worth of administrators and other personnel to try to get students to reengage with school and caught up with classes that are sometimes both far above their skillsets and of no interest to them. Another option is to reinvest at least some of those millions into programmatic offerings that better attract students and motivate them to attend while also placing them in classrooms more suited to their interests and abilities.
Last year, Superintendent Vander Zee made a point to highlight the disparity between the funding of ESUHSD and other districts, noting that our roughly $14k per student is significantly lower than others. This is more reason for robust, data driven dialogue about 1) the most beneficial policies and practices for all our students and 2) given our budget problems, ways to achieve the best results in the most cost-effective ways.
But currently the district has no space for stakeholders to gather and hold in-depth conversations with policymakers about this. The Board does not have a space to hear opposing thoughts on the best approaches to help our most struggling students. We need a place to annually talk about this and other data before we continuously expend millions of dollars into personnel and policies with at best questionable returns. Therefore, we need to reconvene the LCAP Advisory Committee modeled after the district’s Budget Advisory Committee to promote three important district values:
1. Excellence: ESUHSD believes in continuous improvement through collaboration, inquiry, and openness;
2. Inclusiveness: ESUHSD models integrity through transparent, respectful processes that engage the community, staff, students, and parents; and
3. Exploring at a deeper level what it means to meet the needs of all our students.
Comments