With staff layoffs and increases to class sizes now a reality after Measure CC did not pass, how can the Pasadena Unified School District increase its overall health and, at the same time, help bridge the socioeconomic class divides in our communities so more people will contribute their resources for the benefit of all students?
To review, we had a private school parent-led Chamber of Commerce and a private school parent-dominated No on CC group come out against Measure CC. We had a former Tournament of Roses president, likely a private school patron, publicly oppose CC. We had no organized opposition to the successful parcel tax campaigns of South Pasadena, San Marino and La Cañada Flintridge, all affluent districts faced with the same budget problems as PUSD. We had a clear pattern of a lower “yes” vote in areas where the population is more affluent. So there is a clear correlation between having one’s children in the public schools and one’s willingness to contribute resources to those schools, although of course the general state of the economy and whether one owns or rents played a role as well.
The dramatic differences in the socioeconomic compositions of the PUSD student body and those of the private schools and surrounding districts are well-known. Even some of the CC critics say it’s not fair to compare PUSD test scores with those of the surrounding districts, as socioeconomic status, measured by the mother’s education level, is the most powerful predictor of test scores. The critics do point out that PUSD’s Academic Performance Index (API) of 740 is below the statewide API of 754. What is not known is that PUSD’s ethnic subgroups — all of them — outperform the same subgroups statewide.
The phenomenon that causes our API to be lower than the statewide API is the relative proportions of our subgroup populations versus the relative proportions of the subgroup populations statewide. PUSD has 16 percent white students while the state has 28 percent. We have 58 percent Latino students while the state has 50 percent. We have 21 percent African-American students while the state has 7 percent. We have 3 percent Asian students while the state has 8 percent. So PUSD’s subgroups, weighted by their proportion of the student body, contribute much differently to PUSD’s overall API than the state subgroups do to the state’s overall API.
More affluent, more educated parents have removed from the PUSD the students who would probably have higher test scores. Parental choices have determined the proportions of the district’s racial/ethnic and class-associated subgroups, which determine the size of the contributions these subgroups make to PUSD’s overall API.
For those longtime PUSD critics who will say I am preaching socioeconomic determinism, here are the facts: Despite over a decade of test score-based, measure-and-punish accountability, the achievement gap hasn’t really changed in any reasonably large sample of students. Further, large-scale studies by the US Department of Education show that socioeconomic test score gaps are the same for students in public, private or charter schools when they take national tests, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, considered the nation’s report card.
At some point, reasonable people have to admit that race/ethnicity and class play an important role in schools. Studies have shown that students from families of different socioeconomic levels enter school with vastly different levels of vocabulary exposure, and that difference actually increases during school because of the many enrichment activities provided outside of school by more affluent families.
One strategy that a Pasadena Educational Foundation-supported study suggested to attract more affluent families and increase resources for all students is to form partnerships with the world-class institutions in Pasadena. We could form an Art Center magnet, a Caltech magnet and a PCC early college high school and career technical education magnet. Los Angeles Unified School District uses funds that originated with the desegregation movement to fund magnets at its high schools.
PUSD should pursue these kinds of programs. Otherwise, those who have opted out will continue withholding their resources from PUSD to the detriment of all students, and stereotypes and prejudices will persist, as they cannot be broken down without association between groups.
We have seen some new families enter PUSD with the opening of McKinley and its award-winning arts focus, the International Baccalaureate program and a Dual Immersion Program in Chinese-English. And Aveson Charter School has enrolled many families who would have chosen private school. We need to expand this idea to include magnets in PUSD so that more children can benefit. This will have a positive effect on our schools and our communities.
Scott Phelps is a member of the Pasadena Unified School District Board of Education.
This is a very interesting article. However, as a member of the very PUSD Board of Education that recently denied a Charter request for the Aveson School for the Arts, it seems a little ironic. If the schoolboard had approved the charter, we would indeed have more charter schools and more choices for the school district.