Foothills Sentry April 2023

Foothills Sentry Page 8 April 2023 YOUR FU TURE AW AITS Summer 2023 (June 12- August 6) Fall 2023 (August 21 – December 11) sccollege.edu/StudentServices/Admissions/Pages/apply.aspx SCC is ranked in the top 1% of community colleges nationwide and it’s right here in YOUR neighborhood! Or construct a separate granny cottage per city requirements, both may qualify for a partial grant allowance. 100% financing if you qualify. Start earning passive income from the home you already own!!! www.greatearthenviro.com OR construct a separate granny cottage per city requirements, both may qualify for a partial grant allowance. 100% financing if you qualify. Start earning passive income from the home you already own!!! 714-371-7972 CALL GREAT EARTH ENVIRONMENTS Earn extra income from your garage or backyard! TURN THAT OLD GARAGE INTO CASH A dditional D welling U nit greatearthenviro.com St. Lic# 353892 OUSD’s promised academic audit provides little insight By Tina Richards The Orange Unified School District’s heralded academic au- dit, turned comparison with other districts, turned test score sum- mary, was presented at a special meeting, Feb. 23. It revealed that OUSD students tested better than Santa Ana Unified, lower than neighboring Garden Grove, Tus- tin and Irvine USD. The statistical data, compiled by the state for the 2021-22 school year, is available on the internet and contained no analy- sis or revelations that the OUSD Board majority had suggested would be disclosed, While the board never stated the purpose of the audit, it was brought up at the same time Su- perintendent Gunn Marie Hansen was abruptly fired. Assistant Su- perintendent of Educational Ser- vices Cathleen Corella was placed on administrative leave “pending an academic audit.” The audit was the first task assigned to the short-lived Interim Superinten- dent Edward Velasquez. The name game The first hiccup in the promised audit sounded at the Feb. 2 board meeting when no one, not even Velasquez, could explain what an academic audit is. “It’s not an au- dit,” he said, “it’s a look at how OUSD compares with other dis- tricts.” Velasquez was supposed to deliver his report at that meet- ing, but due to the confusion over what it was and what it wasn’t, his presentation was postponed. He subsequently resigned. His report, consisting of test score bar charts from OUSD and other nearby districts, was presented by Lisa Green, executive director of curriculum and instruction. The data showed that while 54.69% of OUSD students had met state literacy standards, 45.31% had not. In math, just 39.77% had met the standards. Garden Grove tested at 58.52% in literacy, 59.14% in math. Tustin Unified scored 59.14% in literacy, 47.67% in math. Irvine Unified’s numbers were 75.95% in literacy and 68.95% in math. The best (and only) analysis of the data came from a public com- menter, Jim Cox, who identified himself as having 50 years of experience in testing and instruc- tional programs. There are six variables to consider when look- ing at test scores, he said. Qual- ity is just one of them. The others are the testing environment, the attitude of teachers and students toward the test, a student’s test- taking skills, the match of cur- riculum content with test content, demographics, and the stability of the ESL population. “You have to find the story behind the num- bers,” he said. “One year of data is never enough.” None of those variables were considered. By the numbers For some public commenters, however, the low test scores spoke volumes. Several speakers (admittedly from outside OUSD) berated teachers in general, the board minority and Superinten- dent Hansen specifically, for poor student performance. Test scores, several suggested, are the best way to measure excellence; they were how kids got into college. They applauded the board major- ity for “doing the right thing.” What that right thing is, how- ever, has never been clearly stated by Board President Rick Ledesma or anyone else. Hansen was fired without explanation; Velasquez resigned without explanation. An “academic audit” was solic- ited, but never defined. Cathleen Corella remains on leave. “Why did we do this compari- son?” Trustee Ana Page asked. “We went over this in October, it’s public information.” “Was there any collaboration with other departments on this report?” Kris Erickson prodded. “Everything in this PowerPoint has been pulled off the internet. None have been analyzed. It’s one snapshot of one year. It’s one data point.” Starting point “These percentages are not to live by, or die by,” Ledesma ex- plained. “Someone coming into the district would look at this data; taxpayers rely on us to have the best data possible.” “But,” Page answered, “there’s a narrative, a story to tell, in addi- tion to test scores.” Ledesma agreed that there was more to the story, but, he said, “We need to look at why test scores are low, and what we are going to do about it.” Apparently the district already is doing something about it. When prompted by board mem- bers Andrea Yamasaki and Page, Green described two OUSD pro- grams, already underway, that are addressing student performance. Under one, test scores at every school are tracked and the differ- ing needs of students assessed. The OUSD executive team met with every principal and set goals, unique to each school, to improve student success. A second program began as a pilot at several schools, and just recently went districtwide for grades K-8. Under that pro- gram, students are assessed on an individual basis; a diagnostic plan, curriculum assessment and achievement goals are uniquely defined for each child. Growth is determined on an individual basis. Students are not compared to classmates or peers in other schools or districts. Green reported that there has been “a lot of good growth” in the last year. Here to help Those efforts appeared to be in synch with what several board members were looking for in terms of academic improvement. Trustee John Ortega stressed that he did not blame teachers for poor test scores, and wanted to find out what additional support they need. He also wanted to look at each school and find out “how we can help them.” His focus, he indicated, is on academics. State-recommended programs, he suggested, might not be useful. How many pro- grams do we have? How much are we spending on them? Are they interfering with academic instruction? Ledesma also wanted to review what he considered nonacademic programs. Are students inundated with programs? Are we losing fo- cus on academics? Are we paying contractors to do what teachers can do? Test scores are just the starting point, Ledesma said, He wants to dig deeper and collect more data on curriculum and student perfor- mance.