I think it's great that the L.A. Unified School District (LAUSD) has reported not only a decrease in its dropout rate, but an increase in its graduation rate for 2007-08. But, I also think we have to take such numbers with a grain of salt. For instance, LAUSD may have a better dropout rate than before, but it still scores pretty low when compared to other districts in the state. And tracking the numbers is more complicated than it seems: for instance, in May of this year, LAUSD reported a much higher rate than it did this week because they had been counting students twice. And even though that statistical problem has been resolved in the new report, it still doesn't account for the fact that the budget cuts might not allow the district to sustain its gains. For instance, the district's dropout prevention program, The Diploma Project, lost half of its counselors due to budget cuts.

My school, Roosevelt High, in Boyle Heights, is reported as having improved by 28%, which is one of the best rates in the district. If the report is based on facts then I have no reason to doubt it. Besides, I have seen people slightly more motivated in school. Perhaps we're not totally psyched because we are upset with the system; we feel we have no say in it. In fact, I think the recent student protests against LAUSD's teacher layoffs and reductions in electives, extracurriculars and school lunch assistance are proof of how serious the students are. If students could actually influence school policies, then the dropout rate might be even lower than it is now.

LAUSD is attributing the improved dropout rates to the institution of Small Learning Communities (SLCs) in its schools, but I can't say for sure if I believe Roosevelt improved because of the SLCs. The reason I'm a bit skeptical is because at Roosevelt, the SLCs don't really translate into any true sense of community among students. It's just a convenience for the administrators to manage the student body. The SLCs are supposed to give more attention to students, but I only saw a counselor about twice a year. Finally, the SLCs are beginning to focus on various career tracks--for instance they're starting one on criminal justice--but, sadly, only students in that SLC would be able to take classes related to that field. Maybe the changes to the SLCs will improve the sense of community and help students keep their motivation up. But, in general, I think the fact that the SLC system limits student access to a wide variety of courses is not a good thing. For instance, I lucked out and had a good experience because I got to take video production. But ask another student, and she might have a different perspective of her experience at school.

If anything, maybe some individual teachers made a difference by keeping us focused and interested. I know my government and economics teacher greatly impacted me by teaching me about all sorts of topics related to social justice. Those are the inspirational teachers we need more of in school. That’s why I put so much effort, along with fellow students, into the recent protests. I believe that we can make wise choices about who we would like to teach us--not just entertain us. Ideally, people who teach us things we can use in our lives.

I'm graduating this December, and I think what kept me in school was the confidence that my parents and teachers instilled in me by showing me that I can have a voice in my education.