School Board Delays Vote to Put All Students on College Prep Track

With hundreds of boisterous parents and students rallying outside its doors, the Los Angeles Board of Education postponed a vote Tuesday on a controversial proposal to require all high school students to complete a set of rigorous college preparation courses.

Board President Jose Huizar, who has championed the effort along with other educators and state officials, agreed to a delay after several members requested more time to discuss it.

The district proposal would require students -- beginning with the freshman class in 2008 -- to complete a series of high school classes required for admission into the University of California or California State University systems.

With the meeting progressing inside, about 500 members of the grass-roots coalition, Communities for Educational Equity, which has pushed for the tougher standards, circled district headquarters carrying placards and bullhorns.

They wore multicolored T-shirts that read “Let Me Choose My Future.”

“We’re asking how long do they need before they are ready?” said Luis Sanchez, executive director of the community group InnerCity Struggle, one of the groups in the coalition. “The board members are not going to learn anything more tonight that they don’t know already.... This is about whether the board believes that all kids can learn and whether they’re willing to devote the resources to make this happen.”

Under the proposal, students would need to complete four years of English, three years of math and at least two years of history, science and a foreign language. To meet this standard, the school district would have to toughen existing graduation requirements to include two years of foreign language and a second year of algebra.

The district has not determined how much it would cost or how many additional teachers it would require.

The proposal has met with increasing resistance in recent weeks as some board members expressed concerns that there had not been sufficient time to discuss the plan and how it would be implemented.

Most supported the call for increased rigor, but questioned whether the plan allowed schools enough time to prepare low-performing students for the tougher classes and whether students not planning to attend college would still have access to vocational classes.

“I’m not ready to vote. This came to us very quickly,” said board member Marlene Canter. “I am completely in favor of maximizing students’ ability to go to college and I have high expectations for all students ... but I don’t know if there will be unintended consequences from this.”

Board member Julie Korenstein, the proposal’s most vocal opponent, was more doubtful. Referring to a recent study of district graduation rates, Korenstein said, “The district graduation requirements are already very stringent ... and still half of the kids are not reaching them. Does it make sense to raise the bar higher?”

Huizar expressed frustration at such sentiments and the delay in the vote, while conceding that he probably did not yet have enough support from the seven-member board to assure the resolution’s passage.

The vote is now scheduled for June 14.