A Startling Statistic at UCLA

Parents Forum
201

<br>


<br>

<p>This is a problem that the top UCs have, keeping their smart kids (of any race) instate. What could Berkeley have done to keep Kuba's S in the UC system when he could go back East to an Ivy? I'm guessing--nothing. Some CA kids are just itching to try something out of state after a lifetime of living in CA.</p>

<p>Two thoughts: </p>

<p>Maybe the UCs should focus on recruiting the level of smart minority kids that is just below the top level...smart enough to handle UC work, but without the ability to get into an Ivy. The UCs are filled with kids of all races that fit this description.</p>

<p>Maybe they should try to recruit from out of state--maybe minority kids from Boston are just itching to leave MA for a little tryout of CA. (Just kidding on this one...)</p>

202

<p>coureur: </p>

<p>I've stated before on this thread that according to the numbers, the demographics are worse for hispanics. The state is actually over 50% hispanic now and UCLA is about 15% hispanic. This is a worse demographic comparison percentage than for blacks. The demos for whites is also indicative of the similar 'problem' in that although the state is 45% non-hispanic white, only 34% of UCLA students are of this category. The Asian demographics are skewed strongly in the opposite direction - although only about 12% of Cal residents are Asian, the distribution at UCLA is 38% - a rate 3 times what it is in the general population.</p>

<p>Globalist: </p>

<p>I wasn't trying to state any excuses (I don't think any are needed for UCLA) - merely pointing out that UVA isn't exactly doing as great in this area as one may think. The stats I indicated are true and they indicate a remarkable similarity in 'results' between the two schools despite the efforts of UVA. I'm not bashing UVA, I'm just using it as an example since I saw it in your post. I'm sure many other schools would have similar results if studied a bit more closely.</p>

<p>So, is the idea that the schools should be a strict demographic representation of their primary audience? This isn't the charter of the UCs. The charter of the UCs is to serve the top 12% of the Cal HS grads (and top 4% of each individual HS) regardless of race. The CalStates and CCs cater to the rest (as well as some of the 12%). Since Asians are the group that are in the majority at UCLA at the 'expense' of blacks, hispanics, and whites, should they be penalized because they generally happen to do very well academically? Should UCLA lower its academic standards and exclude more academically qualified candidates based strictly on their race in order to achieve some quota according to an ever-changing equation? There are obviously many opinions on this including by many who haven't analyzed the stats and are ignoring the demographics (i.e. many are taking too simplistic a view of this and are reacting to the headline). My own opinion is that the UCs, CalStates, and CCs are doing exactly what they should be doing in order to serve the population with an academically strong school system. Further, there are real issues as to why there aren't more qualified candidates from certain ethnic groups that include blacks, hispanics, and whites relative to Asians. I think this is the area that needs more focus and needs to be improved but it's a complex area spanning many societal facets. Perhaps some of the cultural aspects that make the Asians academically successful should be studied and even emulated since it appears to be working well for them. I know it's not as simple as it sounds but real solutions need to be sought rather than masking the real problems.</p>

203

<p>
[quote]
Recognizing this reality, Afr-Am'n families have begun to take matters into their own hands & are actually in many cases segmenting themselves deliberately apart from this system, forming their own charter schools targeted to address educational deficiencies in their own populations. These schools also have college admissions in mind, having configured their curriculum for that & their assumptions for that. These are by no means term schools or vocational schools. An important difference to note between a State site school and an independent charter school, is that the latter <em>requires</em> parental commitment, involvement. (They, along with the teachers, are the "regulators.")

[/quote]
My. That sounds very good. But do you know how these folks are funding it?</p>

204

<p>
[quote]
The state is actually over 50% hispanic now and UCLA is about 15% hispanic. This is a worse demographic comparison percentage than for blacks. The demos for whites is also indicative of the similar 'problem' in that although the state is 45% non-hispanic white, only 34% of UCLA students are of this category.

[/quote]
I don’t think it terribly logical to demand colleges reflect the same racial distribution in their student bodies as exist in the general population. Of 100% of whites, it could be that 30% are culturally bent toward college due to historical forces. Their parents are pushing the kids hard toward college. Of Hispanics, that figure could be 15%. Of blacks, it could be 10%, and of Asians it could be 6943%. (grin)</p>

205

<p>UCSD<em>UCLA</em>Dad,</p>

<p>Two points. Firstly, the Commonwealth of Virginia has 5 historically black public universities/colleges that attract and enroll the largest percentage of Virginia's black college students, so in light of that, I think UVA is doing a pretty excellent job of recruiting, matriculating, and graduating the best African-American students in the state. UNC-Chapel Hill is the only non-historically black public university in the country with a higher percentage of black students.</p>

<p>Secondly, yes, the issue of low black attendance at UC schools is not easily answered, but like I said, it comes down to commitment. It's like a cycle. If somehow the UC schools could help improve under-performing public high schools (which educate many URM's) and recruit the best from those schools, and then help nurture those students when they matriculate so that they succeed not only in the classroom but also after they graduate, word will go out that UC schools really do care about URMs. I believe when this happens more and more black students would choose to attend a UC school over perhaps an Ivy. </p>

<p>You see, it's because of UVA's nurturing environment that the school's best recruiters are the alums. It's the black alumni themselves who are coordinating brunches in various cities nationwide (w/ the help the school of course) to talk about why they love UVA and to attract top black students in those states. Though I'm not African-American, I was invited to one of those brunches 2 months ago in Harlem. So, again it's a cycle.</p>

206

<p>Do Charter schools get state money?</p>

<p>The Hispanic question is a very complicated one. Citizenship and demographic issues come into play. For example:</p>

<p>The city next door to us was investigated by some agency of the govt because it has an over 50% population of Hispanics according to the census, but had never elected a Hispanic official. Was something dastardly going on? </p>

<p>It turned out that a large number of the Hispanics were not in the country legally and so couldn't vote. Others were in the country legally, but weren't citizens yet. And a big portion of the Hispanics were younger than voting age. When you calculated the percentage of Hispanics that could cast a legal vote, it was pretty small. No wonder there had never been a Hispanic elected.</p>

<p>As this relates to college--</p>

<p>Until just recently, CA college applicants who were in the country illegally were not considered CA residents for purposes of the UC/CSU system. That means that they would have been charged OOS tuition, would have had to meet the higher OOS standards and were not eligible for ELC status. </p>

<p>Not being a US citizen means that the federal tuition programs were not available to you. </p>

<p>A large % of the Hispanic population is under college age now. You would not expect the % of Hispanics at a UC to go up until these kids get older.</p>

<p>Anecdotally, from our local hs which is 40% Hispanic, more of the Hispanic kids live at home and go to the local CC and the local CSU (both of which are about 20 minutes away and available by city bus). The local UC is about an hour-plus away and not easily navigable by public transport.</p>

207

<p>Dross:</p>

<p>The state of Cal provides for the allowance of charter schools - i.e. they're funded by the state just as other schools are. Charter schools are typically popping up when parents feel that they would serve a purpose not being addressed by the regular public schools. The good part again, is that the state funds them. Charter schools may be a way to resolve some of the issues discussed on this thread.</p>

208

<p>"......and of Asians it could be 6943%. (grin)"</p>

<p>Yup learn from the asians, how they do it.</p>

<p>(actually it is a very simple formula)</p>

209

<p>I don't know much about charter schools, but from what I've seen I'm against them. I think the bad part is that they receive state funding- because they have no public oversight. At all. Why can't people interested in starting charter schools start private schools instead? Why should other people's money support the schools which have no outside say at all? It's a publicly funded private school, it seems. Why publicly fund it?</p>

<p>If you take away the Jews from within the "whites," I think the situation of percentages and state representation would be more clear. Like the Asians, Jews are far more prevalent in the UCs than their pecentage of the state population.</p>

210

<p>DRab:</p>

<p>You have a point on the charter funding but the advantage to the charter schools being publicly funded is that it makes it possible for those without the funds necessary for private schools to have an alternative.</p>

<p>If the voucher system were ever approved (I am very much in support of it), I believe it would have a large positive benefit. It would allow the lower income population to have a school choice as opposed to being 'stuck' where they are. In addition to having other options for schooling for those impacted the most by the failings of certain specific schools, the public schools would have to either improve to attract the students or 'go out of business' as many of them should. Capitalism and supply and demand would work well here. However, the huge and mighty teacher's union spends enormous sums fighting against the voucher system for self-serving reasons. They prefer the status-quo which we all know hasn't worked out so well in the last couple of decades. The last thing they want to do is allow choice.</p>

<p>I know I opened a can of worms with the above statements but it's time for new ideas.</p>

211

<p>"Look, I’m not criticizing the UC schools. I’m trying to show you guys that change can happen. I really suggest you check out the links above as well as the ones from my previous post (#189)."</p>

<p>Of course change can happen, but by forbidding affirmative action California has made it much harder. I don't think they've done that in Virginia, have they?</p>

212

<p>Making affirmative action based on race illegal might make change somewhat more difficult, but do look at all the many recruitment efforts and the amount of money spent by each school and their total, including all the UCs have in place. While I think the state and the UCs should help, I think it ultimately has to come from within the communities, and other communities have had success, at least it seems more so than African Americans. I remember Bill Cosby being attacked for comments about how there is a fundamental problem in inner-city communities that people choose to ignore or blame on others and little is being done about it to take personal responsibility.</p>

<p>What if they money for charter schools went to regular public schools instead? I don't think that regular public schools are perfect, and that they should be changed in some ways, but I do think that charter schools take money away from other public schools. I'm not sure how I feel about vouchers.</p>

213

<p>"I don't know much about charter schools...."</p>

<p>That's certainly clear. (Demonstrated by the following quote:)...
"...because they have no public oversight. At all."</p>

<p>DRab, it's best not to state facts if you don't know the facts. You're way off base. They in fact have to have tremendous public oversight to (a) continue being funded, more than a few months [i.e., they're results-accountable, to their charter, to the State standards], (b) to graduate academically successful students; (c) to maintain a positive reputation & continue to attract new students. </p>

<p>Private schools are a great alternative, but there are 2 huge drawbacks to them; (a) they're mostly competitive (merit)admissions, meaning not accessible to many previously poorly performing students; most private schools do not want students with a history of failure, nor would many of them pass an admissions placement test; (b) they're expensive; poor students can qualify for financial aid, but virtually no financial aid is 100%, meaning there's still an out-of-pocket cost for the already financially struggling family.</p>

<p>Our charter school, and schools like ours, are much more demanding than either the lower performing site schools or many other charter schools -- the kinds that you may be thinking of: here today, gone tomorrow. Charter schools who do fail to meet oversight standards are history, really fast. Parents in our school are required to work really hard to meet our requirements (meaning, oversight of their students), & students have to work even harder. We do not socially promote, do not graduate students who haven't met our 4-yr. requirements to our satisfaction -- whether or not, btw, they have passed the Exit Exam.</p>

<p>As to "taking away other people's money," these <em>public</em> schools are merely replacing the same site public schools that citizens have been paying for already, & would pay without such charters. We all pay for schools whether or not we have children at all, let alone children publicly educated. Families with privately educated children from kindergarten through college nevertheless pay State taxes for their public universities. No additional money is being asked for charter schools than what would be within the State budget.</p>

<p>So yes, ellemenope (I've always loved your screen name), charter schools get public money. Again, they can have their charter revoked at any time, & are actually far more accountable for results than site schools are. The accountability factor in charter schools is very similar to that of private schools "answering" to tuition-paying parents & expecting results for that tuition. At our school, auditors come in regularly to examine work products, attendance records, teacher write-ups of each student, each month.</p>

<p>Dross, the funding from the State is partly based on ADA, of course. (Getting money upfront, but then continuing to be funded based on a.d.a.) Additionally, each school is budgeted materials according to the level (elem/middle/high). Unlike many charter schools, ours requires actual work to back up each day of attendance. One cannot just warm a seat or be "baby-sat." No work = No attendance for your child that day. Prolonged lack of work (equalling prolonged inattendance) is one strike against you; 3 months of that (doesn't have to be consecutive), you're out of our school. You would only be allowed back in during a following year if you radically changed your behavior -- parent & student; you'd be supervised carefully during any re-enrollment.</p>

<p>Now to the bottom line: the success rate? Our school is quite new, but we're having great success, partly because we've radicalized our standards, as I mentioned earlier. We'll take students who've previously failed, but we choose intervention for them & they'll stay with us into adulthood if they don't complete our requirements. Other charter schools? Their self-reporting says they're doing well -- ie.., the "segmented" ones I mentioned in my previous post. Their graduation rates, quality of learning, results after graduation, are dramatically different than what these same students were doing in their non-charter public site schools. Among other things, the charter allows the faculty & administration to target to the needs of that school population, which makes the teaching/learning more efficient & usually more effective. The schools I'm thinking of allow only credentialed staff, just as ours does. (In fact, many of our teachers have several kinds of credentials & some specialty training.)</p>

214

<p>"I think it ultimately has to come from within the communities, and other communities have had success, at least it seems more so than African Americans. I remember Bill Cosby being attacked for comments about how there is a fundamental problem in inner-city communities that people choose to ignore or blame on others and little is being done about it to take personal responsibility."</p>

<p>DRab, you nailed it. Supporters of AA should realize (and I think many do and are afraid) that the System can not sustain the race based affirmative action for too long. The changing demographics of immigrant chidlren who are driven to perform well academically is rising. The black communities have to rise up and improve themselves. The state Us don't have the freedom as the private Us to admit and give money to whomever they like. (Some state Us are trying - at Texas A&M if you are an URM it is relatively easy to wiggle out a trip to Europe for a week or two). Even now, the 'quota' for native African Americans is reduced by fair number of immigrant black children. I could be wrong, but I had seen the number in 30+% range.</p>

215

<p>Charter schools are publicly funded, and, like other public schools and unlike private schools, they must meet state standards, such NCLB and high-stakes tests. In MA, this means MCAS.</p>

<p>In MA, charter schools labor under a financial constraint insofar as the funding follows the student, but there is no adequate provision for building and equipment or maintenance. Finding a suitable building for the school is often a major concern. </p>

<p>That said, charter schools vary enormously in the populations they serve, in their missions, in their rate of success or failure. Some have shown great success. Others were closed down because of financial problems or disputes between the companies running them and the school district (as in the case of SABIS schools or Edison schools). Still others showed no difference in the performance of their students from the non-charter public schools, and some performed worse.<br>
In our district, one charter school opened last year; it's too early to evaluate how well it is doing. Another charter school that has been in operation for about a decade is performing worse than the public schools and, I believe, has been put on some sort of probation.</p>

<p>It is really impossible to generalize. A recent report on charter schools suggested either the glass was half-full or it was half-empty.</p>

216

<p>What has to happen is that public schools in CA must do a much better job of preparing kids for college from all communities and to do that, there needs to be widespread and radical change. </p>

<p>Here is a discussion of one strategy that seems to work for black students, particularly boys, yet it is used in only a smattering of L.A. County schools. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0604/singlesex%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0604/singlesex&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The article notes that in one school, the results of a fourth-grade writing test found that in the co-ed classes, 57 percent of girls and 37 percent of boys passed. But in the single-sex classes of the same school, 75 percent of the girls and 86 percent of the boys passed. </p>

<pre><code>It's not enough to say that black families have to "raise themselves up"
</code></pre>

<p>and take responsibility for their children's learning; the institutions providing the education have to rise to the challenge too.</p>

217

<p>Trying again on link:
<a href="http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0604/singlesex.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0604/singlesex.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

218

<p>One addendum to jazzymom - the problem of certain racial segments underperforming in public schools isn't unique to California. I believe it's common throughout the country (and I'm not limiting it to the USA either).</p>

219

<p>Today California. Tomorrow, the world!</p>

220

<p>215, 216, 218 are all correct. I'm glad that jazzymom brought up the single-sex research; I've read the same, heard the same. It's an important difference. Marite is correct: chartering is no guarantee of success. What I like about it is its potential for success, particularly in a state or region overburdened by massive bureaucracy combined with an immensely diverse population & set of needs. When control is regained locally, the atmosphere can turn overnight. For a charter to work, professionalism must be the guide, the leadership must be there AND your population being served must continue to be motivated. One cannot sit back on one's laurels or one's goals & coast. It's about steady effort & steady maintenance ; you have chosen not to let big government do your work for you, so guess who's doing it? I happen to work with a crackerjack team. With our many challenges, we might have closed 4 yrs. ago had we not such a competent group of leaders & staff.</p>

<p>And I wanted to address an earlier remark by DRab. Yes indeed, charter schools do bleed money from the State budget. However, if the State is watchful (along with the charter school), there is, again, greater potential for that money not to be wasted, because it's configured for a local population, & because academic progress is being continually monitored. There is the constant concern that the funds will disappear if the performance is not there. Families who've been in both underperforming site schools and in site charter schools have most often given feedback that they believe the charter school budgets are being more efficiently & effectively spent.</p>