L.A. UNIFIED SUES CITY OVER CONTAMINATION AT TAYLOR YARDS HIGH SCHOOL + smf’s 2¢

The district says solvents and other chemicals seeped from city-owned land onto the Taylor Yard campus, which is nearing completion.

L.A. Unified is nearly finished building the 2,295-seat Central Region High School No. 13. It borders the L.A. River in the Taylor Yard area northeast of downtown. (Gary Friedman, Los Angeles Times / April 20, 2011)

By David Zahniser, Los Angeles Times | http://lat.ms/jAPE75

  May 1, 2011, 5:14 p.m. - Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has been a constant salesman on the topic of public schools, pushing for reforms, helping elect new school board members and raising millions of dollars for local campuses.

But those efforts didn't stop school board members, including some who were elected with the mayor's help, from taking City Hall to court over a contaminated campus in Glassell Park.

<<GRAPHIC:  New high school in Glassell Park

The Los Angeles Unified School District filed the federal lawsuit earlier this year, alleging that solvents and other hazardous substances at an empty city-owned lot seeped into the soil at a 2,295-seat high school being built next to the Los Angeles River.

The case presents the latest twist in the history of the $239-million project in the Taylor Yard area northeast of downtown.

In 2005, when school officials were negotiating to buy the property, a real estate developer swooped in and purchased it. That led to a lawsuit that ended when the district paid Meruelo Maddux Properties, headed by developer Richard Meruelo, a settlement of $50 million, considerably more than he had paid for the site.

With the school now only months from opening, the district is calling on the city to hand over $4 million, the amount it spent to remove contaminated soil from the campus.

L.A. Unified lawyer Michelle Meghrouni said the school board voted 5 to 0 to bring the lawsuit, which was designed to get the city's attention after negotiations stalled. "It's in their court now," she said.

Lawyers with City Atty. Carmen Trutanich's office contend that the city has no responsibility for the district's cleanup. Just the fact that the lawsuit was filed drew the ire of City Councilman Ed Reyes, who represents the Glassell Park neighborhood where the school is being built.

Reyes said the two sides should have resolved their issues without having to retain expensive lawyers, some of whom are being paid $330 an hour by the district.

"I'm disappointed because we should be working together. We're serving the same constituents," he said. "I feel like I'm being blindsided."

Villaraigosa, who made his partnership with L.A. Unified the centerpiece of his recent State of the City speech, said he hoped the two sides could resolve the dispute. His spokeswoman, Sarah Hamilton, said the mayor received a memo on the lawsuit in January but would not comment further.

With 85 classrooms, the new school building — known as Central Region High School No. 13 — is going up on a stretch of the L.A. River that, for decades, was lined with rail yards, warehouses and manufacturing plants. Reyes, among others, has been working to replace some of those industrial buildings with playing fields and parkland.

L.A. Unified officials identified the spot for a school in 2004, just as the district was in the throes of a $20-billion construction boom. District officials favored the site, in part because it would keep them from having to force out a large number residents and businesses.

Although L.A. Unified had finalized a purchase agreement to pay the seller more than $27 million, Meruelo tied up the property and bought it for $31.8 million.

Stung by its failure to get the land, the school board filed an eminent domain lawsuit, forcing Meruelo to give up the property and sparking a long back-and-forth over the site's worth.

At that time, Meruelo was known as the largest landowner in downtown Los Angeles, a businessman who had spent nearly $200,000 to help Villaraigosa win the 2005 mayor's race.

Two years later, Villaraigosa succeeded in electing a trio of allies to the school board. In 2008, a majority of that board settled its lawsuit by paying Meruelo $18.3 million more for the site than he had spent on it three years earlier.

The only Villaraigosa ally to oppose the settlement was board member Tamar Galatzan, who won office with $2.2 million in support from the mayor. Galatzan called the purchase "a sweetheart deal for the developer" and said the district should have taken its eminent domain lawsuit to trial.

"I thought we should litigate it and we would win. The price was so far over any estimate for what the property was worth that I thought it was obscene," said Galatzan, who said she is not involved in the latest lawsuit because she works in the city attorney's office.

Even with Meruelo's land, the school site has an odd layout. A privately owned billboard sits in front of the campus on San Fernando Road on property the district didn't buy. Also in front of the campus is a city-owned yard that is used to hold construction equipment during sewer repairs, Reyes said.

In 2009, the same year that Meruelo Maddux filed for bankruptcy protection against its creditors, the district's lawyers found contaminants on one end of the campus. They concluded that the chemicals had come from a site once occupied by the Profile Plastics manufacturing plant. That site was purchased by the city in 2001 and belongs to the Bureau of Sanitation, according to city officials.

William Carter, Trutanich's chief deputy, said the city cleaned up its property in 2005. And he disagreed with the notion that the city has responsibility for the district's remediation work.

"It's obvious that L.A. Unified understood they were purchasing contaminated property — not to say that it was contaminated by our property," he said.

Carter has some familiarity with soil contamination. From 2006 to 2009, he worked for the law firm that helped the district file its case against the city. As a lawyer in that firm, Carter helped L.A. Unified secure compensation from private companies for the cleanup of polluted soil on its newly bought land.

smf: I will write at length about this this weekend.

Suffice it to say the best school board the mayor could buy is now biting the hand of the best mayor Mr, Meruelo could buy. The mayor and Councilman Reyes stood by and let this happen, as city officials and responsible adults they bear some (ir)responsibility. The city may not be right one to bite – and Meruelo’s activity in adding to the toxic contamination of the site is well documented (the site is probably the most environmentally well-documented parcel since the discovery of dirt!). The morally bankrupt Meruelo is now fiscally bankrupt. And any court – whether of public opinion or Federal – where these shenanigans get discussed is the right court.

The people must get their accountability and their accounting where they can find it.

Updated: PRINICIPAL AT DOWNTOWN L.A. ARTS HIGH SCHOOL VOWS TO RESOLVE ENROLLMENT CONTROVERSY + WHO CAN ATTEND L.A. UNIFIED’S ARTS HIGH SCHOOL? + HOLD THE APPLAUSE

PRINCIPAL AT L.A. ARTS HIGH SCHOOL VOWS TO RESOLVE ENROLLMENT CONTROVERSY

Howard Blume/LA Times | http://lat.ms/h8UHfd

December 30, 2010 | 12:52 pm - In a letter to staff, the principal of the 1-year-old arts high school in downtown Los Angeles pledged this week to get answers to questions raised by a Los Angeles Times article about the school’s enrollment policy. (“WHO CAN ATTEND L.A. UNIFIED’S ARTS HIGH SCHOOL?”/follows)

“As of now the policy remains the same, but if it needs to change then so be it,” Principal Luis Lopez wrote in an e-mail to staff. The as-yet-unnamed school is still referred to as Central Los Angeles High School No. 9.

The article, published Dec. 26, reveals that Los Angeles Unified School District officials have been enforcing an enrollment policy that contradicts a 2006 decision by the city’s Board of Education. At the time, board members voted to open the school to district-wide enrollment as soon as local classroom overcrowding eased in exchange for approving a more ambitious and expensive design and program.

  smf: Principal Lopez’ son attends HS#9 as a student residing outside the  attendance area and has since the school opened.  This also reopens the unresolved controversy over the unexplained removal of Suzanne Blake, the school’s original principal.

 

WHO CAN ATTEND L.A. UNIFIED’S ARTS HIGH SCHOOL?

The policy that 70% of students be from the downtown area was designed to be temporary until overcrowding at nearby schools was relieved. But some officials say that figure is permanent.

Parents and prospective students walk through the theater lobby on a tour of the $232-million campus in downtown Los Angeles. L.A. Unified board policy called for the school to be open equally to youths districtwide once overcrowding at other schools in the area was relieved. (Gary Friedman / Los Angeles Times / December 9, 2010

By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times | http://lat.ms/dTxg1O

December 26, 2010 - You can't miss the distinctive 140-foot stainless steel tower of the city's year-old downtown arts high school from the adjacent 101 Freeway or from anywhere else nearby.

But figuring out how to enroll in the still-unnamed Grand Avenue campus can be elusive, and Los Angeles Unified School District officials are ignoring a school board policy regarding who should attend the $232-million, state-of-the-art school.

The drill for getting into Los Angeles Central High School No. 9, the campus' temporary name, adds one more wrinkle to the ever more complex process of picking a school in L.A. Unified.

Save Up to 90%: Sign up for our free daily e-mail to get in on exclusive deals around L.A. Powered by Groupon. Subscribe Now.

Students, for example, can apply to a magnet school and will get in based on their ethnicity and a detailed point system. They can also apply to charter schools, where they must win a lottery to enroll at the popular ones. Families also can consider nine new schools, although details about their academic programs won't be available until at least February.

Some schools will make room for gifted students or athletes who don't live in the area. Then there are local neighborhood schools where leftover classroom seats are available for the asking.

These offerings, and more, have different rules and different deadlines. Many are listed in the district's "Choices" brochure. Charters, public schools that are independently run, are listed separately on the district website.

Even though students from across L.A. Unified can apply to the arts school, which opened in September 2009, the campus isn't mentioned in that brochure. Nor is the process explained on the school's multimedia website — though it did list three dates in December for tours aimed at prospective families.

Mostly it was word of mouth and independent sleuthing that brought Ted Bernstein and his son, Adam, 13, an avid ballet student, to a tour.

"The only reason I knew about it was that we were researching high schools and looking for a specific thing for our son," said Bernstein, who lives in the mid-Wilshire area. "I read about it in the newspaper when it was getting ready to open up."

Shawin Gonzalez, a 30-year-old college student who lives with her parents in Hollywood, was helping her younger sister find a school other than their neighborhood campus.

"I see it when I drive on the freeway," she said. "I Googled: new, high school, Grand, California."

During the tours, which drew nearly 200 students and parents, Principal Luis Lopez explained that students who live near the school apply through a lottery to fill 70% of classroom seats. Students from elsewhere will be accepted first-come, first-served starting Feb. 7 to fill the remaining 30%.

Administrators told parents that the 70-30 ratio is the school's permanent enrollment policy, based on a decision made by the Board of Education.

But that explanation is incorrect, based on the actions of the board in March 2006.

The neighborhood advantage was supposed to be temporary until L.A. Unified relieved overcrowding in nearby schools. And now, the construction of schools and declining enrollment near Belmont High School has left area campuses less crowded than in other portions of the nation's second-largest school system.

According to board policy, the arts high school should be opened up equally to non-local students, including middle-class students with an arts background as well as low-income students who happen to live farther away. The board voted to start with a minimum of 500 outside students.

Current school board President Monica Garcia, who represents the local area, did not participate in the 2006 decision; she joined the board months later.

She has "raised hell," in her words, about enforcing a permanent 70-30 ratio, saying that no more than 500 outside students should ever be allowed.

For decades, overcrowding had forced thousands of students in that area to be bused out of the Belmont neighborhood west of downtown. And those who remained attended packed campuses that operated year-round on shortened schedules.

Community leaders and district officials, such as Garcia, regarded Central Los Angeles High School No. 9 and other new area campuses as partial payback for decades of insufficiency. The district is also developing performing arts training to benefit that area's low-income elementary and middle-school students.

Former board member Marlene Canter, among others, sees an unfair, unauthorized revision of the rules on who can attend the high school. She said the board agreed to create a world-class arts school at nearly triple the original cost in exchange for districtwide enrollment.

"We made it clear that as soon as overcrowding was relieved, the arts high school would be open to the entire district," Canter said.

Canter challenged the six current board members representing other areas to demand that families receive equal access.

The district's demographer said 70% of seats must remain restricted for local students indefinitely. Other, nearby schools have cut class sizes, reducing the capacity of those campuses, said Rena Perez. And the arts school itself lost more than 200 seats when it added offices.

The district is actively recruiting arts high students only from the local area. In its inaugural year, the school had trouble luring such students. Most came from outside the area, including about 50 from beyond L.A. Unified entirely.

That prompted Garcia to complain behind the scenes that officials, including the principal, who was subsequently removed, weren't doing enough to attract local students.

This school year, local interest soared. In fact, the school had room for only 85% of the local students who applied.

Non-local students faced much longer odds. More than 400 applications were submitted for 144 spaces before the school stopped accepting them.

Much of the demand from outside the area is from parents who, like Bernstein, have provided arts training for their children, and who were resourceful enough to learn about the school.

The school district, Bernstein said, "spent a tremendous amount of money on the facility, so it should be available to all the kids in Los Angeles."

But officials, including school board President Monica Garcia, have said the school’s permanent policy is to enroll 70% of students from neighborhoods near the school. Garcia represents that area on the seven-member Board of Education.

That article was followed on Wednesday by a Times editorial on a separate but related issue. (“HOLD THE APPLAUSE”/follows)  The editorial urged the school district to enroll students by audition; currently, students are selected without regard to their talent or training in the arts.

“These two articles raise important questions, and I will certainly make all efforts to get answers to them,” Lopez wrote. “I am not at the level to make this decision, but I do have a charge to request for it to be clarified and clearly stated.”

A veteran district administrator, Lopez moved over from Franklin High after the district removed Suzanne Blake, who had been principal during the school’s first year. Garcia had criticized Blake for not enrolling enough local students, although the district has declined to state what factors prompted them to replace Blake, who was popular at the school.

In his e-mail, Lopez urged staff to stay focused on the school’s educational mission.

“I suggest that we all keep focused on what our number one charge is: to teach the kids that we do have,” he wrote. “We are already a model school. Our students are showing their learning in many more ways than one! It is our responsibility to highlight their learning and lead the discussion rather than be reactive and defensive.”

In 2006, the school board decided the school should be “open to all district students, beginning with a minimum of 500 students from outside the residential area to grow as space permits,” according to the board resolution.

The school cost $232 million to build. An additional $190 million was spent to relocate district headquarters from the Grand Avenue site. When both those figures are taken into account, the school is, by far, the district’s most expensive, at a cost of nearly $281,000 per seat. The school also costs about 30% more to operate on an ongoing basis than a typical high school, officials have said.

 

HOLD THE APPLAUSE: L.A. Unified's downtown arts high school could become a model, but first it needs to get its admissions process right.

LA Times Editorial | http://lat.ms/fj73wi

December 29, 2010 - If it is to become a great institution and a model for others around the country, the new downtown arts high school should train the most talented students within its reach, based on fair auditions and portfolios of their work. That's how it is at the Orange County High School of the Arts, a charter school in Santa Ana that was the training ground of "Glee" star Matthew Morrison. That's how the Fiorello H. La Guardia High School, the successor to the arts school of "Fame" fame, operates in New York City. Yet school board politics have kept the same formula for success from applying at the showcase arts campus in downtown Los Angeles.

Times are hard enough for Central High School No. 9, which doesn't even have a permanent name yet. Because of the district's wrongheaded rush to open the $232-million campus in 2009, the school's first year was rockier than it should have been. It struggled to gain accreditation, both of its top administrators were reassigned, and it hasn't yet attracted hoped-for financial support from the entertainment industry. The district's abysmal financial picture means that it cannot put the kinds of resources into the school that it had planned.

There were bad decisions all around, but the worst were policies pushed by school board President Monica Garcia that have kept the school from enrolling L.A.'s top arts students, who would draw attention and donations that in turn would help future students succeed. As Times staff writer Howard Blume recently reported, the school is required to accept 70% of its students from the immediate neighborhood, and none of its admissions are based on merit. Local students are picked by lottery; those from other neighborhoods in the district are enrolled on a first-come, first-served basis. The district doesn't even let parents know about the program in its materials on school choices.

Get the best in Southern California opinion journalism delivered to your inbox with our Opinion L.A. newsletter. Sign up »

Students who get in will no doubt have a fine experience, but that's not the same as building a great arts school. Garcia is right to demand that the long-underserved students from this impoverished neighborhood should have special access, but her formula is upside down. Thirty percent of the spots should go to students living nearby, and the rest to students from throughout the district. And all students should be selected by audition or portfolio review. Admission to a potentially unique school should not happen by chance or by which parents heard of it first.

School overcrowding in the central city is no longer a problem; the area has several beautiful new campuses. The school board should muster the common sense and political will to insist on a change in the enrollment formula and show that it can create an arts school that deserves nationwide applause.

THE DENOUEMENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE: The day that was: Tuesday Feb 23rd as of 8:35 pm

`de·noue·ment

/ˌdeɪ|nuˈmɑ̃/  Show Spelled[dey-noo-mahn]|

–noun

1.the final resolution of the intricacies of a plot, as of a drama or novel.

2.the place in the plot at which this occurs.

3.the outcome or resolution of a doubtful series of occurrences.

smf writes for 4lakids:

The board meeting today produced interesting results, some expected – some not. For the most part the superintendent's recommendations were accepted – but there were notable exceptions.

• ICEF, Green Dot and The Alliance for College Ready Schools – powerhouse charter operators with programs recommended for acceptance – were repudiated.

• The Mayor’s Partnership for LA Schools picked up a school that they weren’t recommended for.

• The veracity of evidence and data challenging charter school acceptance of English Language Learners and Special Ed students was intensely questioned – 'good data' supports one's position, 'bad data' is to be denied.

• And though the entire PSC evaluation and review process was supposed to be data driven and evidence based, it t turned out that potential operators were not evaluated on past performance on but on whether they agree to follow the rules in the future.

• The board followed the unwritten 'Don't mess in my bailiwick' rule of following the lead of the member in their district when Boardmember LaMotte offered an amendment that was accepted denying ICEF at Obama Middle School in her district.

• Board President Garcia then violated the same rule on the next vote (denying Green Dot and The Alliance at Estaban Torres High School) by offering an amendment on a school not in her district but in Yolie Flores’. Garcia's amendment carried.

• As Flores is the author of the PSC resolution – and the champion of the superintendent’s recommendations – the tension rose, the board grew more and more divided and the politics got fast and furious.

• Horsetrading happened in the open – and operators denied this time were assured of better treatment next time (unless some wise judge stops them before they choose again!)

• Advance approval was guaranteed of a Pilot School at Gratts Elementary next year even though one wasn't even requested.

Democracy is messy when the sausage is made.

Notable quotes:

NURY MARTINEZ resurrected Connie Rice's metaphor of LAUSD reform as building the aircraft in flight. They have built their plane and it follows the script of Flight of the Phoenix – where it turns out the designer of the plane has only built scale models. Now they have to fly it – and land the puppy!

SUPT. CORTINES: “The Public School Choice process has divided us..... (that's Freudian) ….I mean provided us with an opportunity.....”

STEVE ZIMMER: (On the 'Parent Trigger'): “You can't declare war on people and not expect them to act like combatants.” “The 'red shirts' and the 'white shirts' are not the future. The future is in the plans.”

TAMAR GALATZAN: “Nothing is happening in my district, no Focus Schools, no pilots for individual student funding. You are ignoring half of the valley; successful schools are and need to be part of the wave of the future.”

MARGUERITE LAMOTTE: “It has been said by some that charter schools reestablish segregation; I cannot and will not say to my constituents that the money you gave for the bonds is being given to charter schools.”

RICHARD VLADOVIC: “In the past we have written the best plans in the worlds. We have placed them on the best shelves in the world where they collected the best dust in the world.”

MONICA GARCIA: “No one on this board takes their job lightly; I hope I can say no one in this district takes their job lightly. Tomorrow it takes all of us.”

 

from Google News

LA School Board Snubs Charter School Operators

CBS 13 - Christina Hoag - ‎27 minutes ago‎

The district already boasts the highest number of charter schools of any school district in the country. More than 160 of its 800 schools are run by ...

City Approves School Plan

Wall Street Journal - Tamara Audi - ‎44 minutes ago‎

He recommended awarding the remaining 28 schools to groups led by Los Angeles Unified School District teachers. The board ratified most of Mr. Cortines's ...

Los Angeles Times

LAUSD turns over control of schools to outside groups

Los Angeles Times - ‎1 hour ago‎

... outside the downtown Los Angeles Unified School District headquarters. Bidders inside and outside the district have been vying for the schools under a ...

LAUSD Grants Control Of Several Campuses To Outside Groups

LA Weekly (blog) - Dennis Romero - ‎2 hours ago‎

23 2010 @ 5:58PM ​Despite a demonstration by members of the teacher's union, the board of the Los Angeles Unified School District Tuesday voted to roughly ...

LA school board OKs handing schools to nonprofits

San Jose Mercury News - Christina Hoag - ‎2 hours ago‎

AP LOS ANGELES—The Los Angeles school board has approved a plan to turn over the operation of 30 campuses to nonprofit educational groups, but most of the ...

 

LAUSD board approves new administration for 36 schools

89.3 KPCC - ‎2 hours ago‎

The powerful United Teachers Los Angeles, which helped teachers craft successful reform plans, wants to put a stop to the process before then. ...

School Handoff Plan Divides LA

Wall Street Journal - Tamara Audi - ‎3 hours ago‎

He recommended awarding the remaining 28 schools to groups led by Los Angeles Unified School District teachers. The changes would affect 38000 students. ...

Awards for Teachers and Schools in Arts Education to be Held Downtown

LA Downtown News Online - ‎6 hours ago‎

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - The Music Center of Los Angeles County this week announced the 14 teachers and six schools named as finalists in the 28th annual ...

Hundreds protest LA board vote on school choice

MyMotherLode.com - ‎7 hours ago‎

Hundreds of teachers and parents chanted slogans and waved placards in front of the Los Angeles school district headquarters Tuesday as the school board ...

Hundreds to protest LA board vote on school choice

Education Week News - ‎7 hours ago‎

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Hundreds of teachers and parents plan to protest at a Los Angeles school board meeting in which the district could approve the transfer ...

 

SUPERINTENDENT’S BOARD INFORMATIVE RE LETTERS OF INTENT RE PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE - 17 Nov 2009

Psc Letters of Intent Board Informative 11 17 09

RFK SITE TO BECOME SCHOOLS + smf comments

 

By Tony Castro, Staff Writer | LA Newspaper Group (Daily News)

October 11, 2009 -- On the grounds of the old Ambassador Hotel where Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1968, officials Saturday dedicated a site of national tragedy into one of potential local triumph.

Two of Kennedy's grandchildren were among those who witnessed ribbon-cutting ceremonies for a new elementary education facility featuring two pilot schools.

"This is sacred ground," labor leader and Kennedy friend Dolores Huerta told about 500 people who attended the dedication.

The ceremony marked the culmination of a long political battle to raze the famed hotel and convert the 24-acre grounds into an urban school site. In addition to the new elementary schools, a new Robert F. Kennedy High School is scheduled to open in September 2010.

"My father was a champion of those who suffered disadvantages in America," Kennedy's son Maxwell said in a statement released by the Los Angeles Unified School District.

"This new K-12 learning center will educate and empower our young people and their parents to fight for economic and social justice. "I know of no better way to advance the living legacy of Robert Kennedy."

When complete, the educational complex will serve 4,400 students in grades K-12 in heavily Latino neighborhood west of downtown.

"My dream has been to make the schools a living memorial to Robert Kennedy," said Paul Schrade, a former senior aide to the late senator and head of the RFK-12 Community Task Force, the local group that worked toward construction of the learning complex.

Among obstacles that had to be overcome were Donald Trump's dream to build five towers at the site, one of them 125 stories tall, plans by Wal-Mart to put a store at the location and a movement by the Los Angeles Conservancy to preserve the landmark.

"Robert Kennedy told us what makes life worthwhile is the health of our children and the quality of their education," said Schrade.

Kennedy was gunned down at the Ambassador Hotel just minutes after winning the Democratic Party's 1968 California primary, an attack in which Schrade was also wounded.

LAUSD school board President Monica Garcia said Kennedy's message is "alive with us as we celebrate the opening of not one, but two exciting new pilot schools."

"We are inspired by the memory of Senator Kennedy who reminds us every day that we each have something to contribute," Garcia said. "And he reminds us every day that we can absolutely do better."

______________________

●● what smf said at the RFK-12 ribboncutting:

The good news is that I'm the last speaker today.

The really good news is that the youngsters behind me haven’t waited for any of us to sit down and shut up to play on the playground equipment behind this stage!

President Obama reminded us yesterday that we rise to meet challenges far more often than we solve them. This city and this school district have risen to meet the challenges of overcrowding and forced busing and the year round calendar; of disrepair and lack of vision. Those will, in time certain, be obstacles in the rear view mirror, thanks to the voters and taxpayers of this city.

Other challenges loom: Class sizes and underinvestment; a misunderstanding of the roles of art and music and physical activity in education and society. You kids must rise and meet the challenge of education and education reform --- you must rise to it, accept it and make the best of it …here in this new school, your new school – and onward – ever onward …into the high school that will be part of this incredible complex – and on to colleges and universities and art schools - to law school and medical school and engineering school; architecture school, trade school and business school.

Be safe here, Make lifelong friends. Do good work. Learn from your mistakes. Have fun.

It is a hero's journey: You must go forth …and come back and build the future. That is the dream and the vision and the promise of RFK-12.

Robert Kennedy made Bernard Shaw’s words his own: "Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not”. Those words, Boys and Girls, must be your words; those dreams must be your dreams. THEN we will be the City of Angeles we aspire to be.

Dare to dream. Ask "Why not?" Re-imagine the American Dream. Your dreams are our future.

Because you, the students, are the magic, and the promise.

L.A. UNIFIED TAKES HAMMER TO ITS BUILDING UNIT:The loss of the head of the LAUSD's construction division could be the beginning of waste, cost overruns, political contracts and worse.

 

Opinion By Constance L. Rice | LA Times

4:21 PM PDT, September 28, 2009 -- The construction unit of the Los Angeles Unified School District has successfully and cost-effectively built 80 new schools and won scores of awards. So how has Supt. Ray Cortines rewarded this efficient unit? By driving out its superb leadership.

Guy Mehula, the talented head of the construction division, resigned Monday after LAUSD leaders made clear their intention of dragging Mehula's quasi-independent team back under the tight control of the district.

Taking away the unit's autonomy would be a huge mistake. The district has tried micromanaging the construction of schools, and it failed miserably. If you need convincing, just think about the disastrous cost overruns and construction errors of the Belmont Learning Complex.

For those who don't remember the horrific details, the district began construction at Belmont (or the Edward R. Roybal Learning Center, as it was finally called) without required environmental reviews or professional managers, ultimately building a $160-million high school that the state declared unusable for children. A scathing audit of the debacle concluded that the project had violated environmental and public safety laws, and that the uninformed district had "tolerated a culture remarkably indifferent" to standards or accountability. The audit referred several of its findings to the district attorney for criminal investigation.

With a pressing need for new schools, then-Supt. Roy Romer and a newly elected board of education were determined to avoid more Belmonts, so they established a facilities division that was independent, expertly run and free of the district's torpid bureaucracy. The new unit was staffed by construction professionals and experienced Navy engineers who were insulated from political and union pressures. Schools were built by carefully selected contractors who were closely monitored by an expert staff of auditors and managers.

The new division, charged with managing a $20-billion construction effort, quickly established a system of value-based contracting that permitted necessary -- but not political -- changes to contracts. And Romer was true to his word: The school board set policy and acquired land for schools, but otherwise stayed out of the way.

Now Cortines has rescinded key provisions that helped shield the facilities division from unwarranted interference. He proposes to remove the unit's specially assigned and quasi-independent lawyers and limit the hiring of contractors to 10-month periods -- something few competent construction professionals would agree to. Cortines and the board also want to set salary limits that are not competitive. Mehula resigned because these and other proposals would end the independence that has made the school construction unit a success.

Cortines' actions come as the construction program is also facing other threats.

Some school board members, in actions reminiscent of the group that brought us Belmont, have started pushing for expensive and wasteful changes to building contracts. They have tried to use bond funds for things that are prohibited by the bond measure. And they have increasingly questioned contract awards and dismissed the judgment of facilities professionals. Most discouraging, I have heard two school board members suggest that the facilities division needs to "look more like Los Angeles." Although diversity is important, it cannot be allowed to trump the expertise needed to manage a massive school construction program.

With Mehula's resignation, bondholders, taxpayers and contractors should be very worried. If his expert management team leaves, the successful phase of school construction is almost certain to end -- and bond money will once again be wasted.

It is time to consider creating an independent construction authority for building schools. Doctors don't build hospitals, and lawyers don't build courthouses. Why should educators who can barely manage the mission of education build schools?

Constance L. Rice is a civil rights attorney and a member of the School Construction Bond Oversight Committee.

GARFIELD HIGH IS ELIGIBLE FOR TAKEOVER: Control of the East L.A. school, setting for 'Stand and Deliver,' could shift because of its low academic standing [+ more]

By Howard Blume | LA Times

September 26, 2009 -- Garfield High, which became nationally known as the real-life setting for the film "Stand and Deliver," will be among the initial 12 local campuses, including six high schools, eligible for takeover because of persistent academic failure, officials announced Friday.

The nation's second-largest school system will invite bidders from inside and outside the district to run these schools next year through a proposal process that is still being developed.

The Los Angeles Board of Education authorized this school-control plan in August; it applies to low-achieving existing schools and to 51 new campuses set to open over the next four years in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Garfield, which for decades has served a largely immigrant Latino population in East Los Angeles, reached a high-water mark in the 1980s, when math teacher Jaime Escalante built his famed calculus program.

Under his leadership, dozens of students passed the Advanced Placement calculus test every year, a rare feat even at the nation's elite schools.

Last year, only 5% of Garfield students tested as "proficient" in any math class.

"All these schools need the attention that this will focus on them," said board member Yolie Flores Aguilar, author of the policy.

Other schools include:

* Maywood Academy in the southeast Los Angeles County city of Maywood. The school opened four years ago. Maywood city officials are interested in obtaining substantial control over the school, said City Councilman Felipe Aguirre.

* Jefferson High in Central-Alameda. District officials successfully opposed a previous charter conversion attempt by Steve Barr and his Green Dot Public Schools. Barr later engineered a takeover of Locke High.

* Lincoln High in Lincoln Heights. Teachers helped staff a volunteer summer school after budget cuts slashed district offerings. One potential course that failed to attract sufficient enrollment was an activism seminar with the proposed class project of recalling Flores Aguilar because she voted for budget cuts that resulted in layoffs.

* Burbank Middle School in Highland Park, where parents have long worried about gang influence on campus. The school also has two new magnet schools that, some argue, already are the basis of a promising reform.

* San Fernando Middle School, the only Valley campus.

The other schools are Gardena High, San Pedro High, Carver Middle School in South Park, Griffith Joyner Elementary in Watts, Hillcrest Elementary in Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, and Hyde Park Elementary in Hyde Park.

L.A. schools Supt. Ramon C. Cortines said that being on the list "should not be viewed as a negative" and that "this process is about providing our schools with the appropriate supports."

More than 250 schools are eligible under the board resolution, which applies to schools that consistently failed to meet federal benchmarks for at least three years.

Cortines refined the formula as recently as midweek, finally deciding that the "focus" schools, as he called them, would meet additional criteria: fewer than 21% of students proficient in math or English and no school-wide improvement on the state's Academic Performance Index, which is largely based on standardized test scores.

In addition, high schools would have a dropout rate greater than 10%.

Garfield qualified easily.

The school also owns the lowest rank, 1 of 10, when compared with schools statewide. But that does not make Garfield's selection incontestable.

When compared with schools that serve similar students, Garfield rates a 6 of 10, which puts it in the upper half of state schools.

And although Garfield dropped three points on this year's Academic Performance Index, it had improved by 44 and 25 points the previous two years, among L.A. Unified's better gains.

Garfield's uncertain future has engendered fear and anger among the faculty, said social studies teacher Brian Fritch.

"We have a lot of teachers confused about what the next step will be," he said. "People don't feel included in the process and feel rushed."

Fritch is hustling to organize an internal reform proposal.

Junior Karen Flores, 16, said she and her classmates are worried about the loss of cherished Garfield traditions and a disrupted senior year, with the potential to affect classes and college applications.

"It feels like people are giving up on us," she said.

Garfield became a reform battleground as a target of the Parent Revolution, which emerged out of Green Dot.

Its organizers have asserted that they have signatures from dissatisfied community parents equal in number to more than half the Garfield student body and that the district must either improve Garfield or face competition from start-up charter schools that would surround it.

Green Dot has agreed to step aside and let another charter group, the Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools, manage new charters near Garfield.

Alliance chief executive Judy Burton said she's interested in submitting a proposal both for Garfield and for a new high school, under construction, that will relieve Garfield's overcrowding.

more:

Valley middle school on list for takeover

Los Angeles Daily News - Connie Llanos -

The district selected 36 schools - 24 new campuses and 12 underperforming sites - to ensure that every "focus" school, as LAUSD Superintendent Ramon ...

Gardena and San Pedro schools are high on takeover list

Daily Breeze - Connie Llanos, Melissa Pamer -

... schools in the South Bay - could be taken over by independent operators next year under a Los Angeles Unified reform plan, district officials said ...

$1.5 BILLION UP FOR GRABS

…but it's not about the money! a 4LAKids Spreadsheet 24 NEW SCHOOLS SUBJECT TO PSC RFP
School	Students	Co$t
Gratts PC	400	$66,877,385
Valley Region ES #6	950	$59,861,759
Valley Region ES #7	800	$62,224,883
Valley Region ES #8	725	$48,567,191
Valley Region ES #9	800	$57,818,486
Valley Region ES #10	650	$36,548,280
Central Region ES #13	875	$75,512,417
Central Region ES #15	575	$70,931,735
Central Region ES #16	675	$66,748,089
Central Region ES #17	725	$64,486,404
Central Region ES #18	575	$54,465,009
South Region ES #1	1,050	$85,379,327
South Region ES #2	1,050	$97,156,182
South Region ES #3	775	$81,238,658
South Region ES #4	775	$86,419,831
South Region MS # 2A	1,404	$127,675,163
South Region MS # 2B	inc	inc
South Region MS # 2C	inc	inc
South Region MS #6	1,404	$136,636,484
Esteban E. Torres HS #1	2,322	$206,707,370
Esteban E. Torres HS #2	inc	inc
Esteban E. Torres HS #3	inc	inc
Esteban E. Torres HS #4	inc	inc
Esteban E. Torres HS #5	inc	inc
TOTAL	16530	$1,485,254,653

smf to Board of Ed on Sept 22nd

Text of smf speech re rules changes

Good afternoon President Garcia, Dr. Morris, and members of the Board. I officially bring you the Happy New School Year greetings and best wishes of Los Angeles Tenth District PTA and - unofficially - the seventy thousand card carrying PTA members of PTA in LAUSD.

There has been talk of this action and other recent actions of the board being "done deals" - I hope not. I'd like to believe that I'm not wasting my time and your time by tilting at windmills here.

The agenda item itself: "Proposes specific changes and suspension of specific board rules to align the operational rules of the board with current practice, create efficiencies and effectuate cost savings..." seems a cynical nod to the "done deal": - "…and adds Board Rule regarding authorizations required for teachers to teach English Language learners." seems like a bit of sugar coated misdirection.

My first suggestion is parliamentary and procedural - I call for a Division of the Question -- I ask that you break these proposed rules changes into individual items and debate each on their merits.

PTA participates in the Parent Engagement Task Force - a group charged under a resolution from the board - and you Ms Flores Aguilar - with creating parent involvement policy - which is a good thing - and opening LAUSD to greater parent and community engagement - which is a great thing. Many of us on the task force having been working at this for years -- we are well on our way.

But the message being sent here today - limiting public board meetings, eliminating committees, abridging public comment and standardizing meeting times is a series of big steps in the wrong direction. You endanger the progress being made by throwing out the baby with the bathwater - and Ms LaMotte is always reminding us that it's about the babies!

The committees which you propose to abandon offer unique public forums for the board to interact with district staff, community members, experts-in-the-field, and parents as equals - up there on that horseshoe in the comfy chairs - in conversations that drive policy. The advent of Full Day Kindergarten in LAUSD grew out of a discussion David Tokofsky and I began at the Facilities committee.

The book BEYOND THE BAKE SALE - An Essential Guide to Family School Partnerships poses some interesting themes: Who's in charge hare anyway? - Developing Relationships - Linking to Learning - Supporting Advocacy and Sharing Power.

It describes two models of parent organizations: THE TRADITIONAL MODEL built on bake sales and fundraising, regular meetings at convenient times to staff and supporting the principal's agenda - and THE LEADERSHIP MODEL, where the focus is on supporting student achievement, the agenda responds to issues within the community and meetings take place at the convenience of stakeholders.

You are creating policy here that compounds the issues we face and isolates this board to your offices, whether upstairs or in the field. You are making the same mistake that traditional parent organizations make: you need to reach out - not withdraw into policy and rules.

We - LAUSD - are making progress and we need your leadership. We need transparency and we need accountability. Parents need access to this Board of Education. We are not asking you to micromanage, we are asking you to lead. You need to embrace a leadership style that doesn't lead from the twenty-fourth floor but from this boardroom and out into the district - leading not from the top ….but from the center.

Thank you.

LAUSD’s NEXT STEP/PRÓXIMO PASO DEL LAUSD

LAUSD’s next step Editorial| La Opinión 2009-08-30  -- The Board of Education of Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) approved a measure this week to open up 250 schools to private operators in an attempt to improve student achievement. The action is one positive response to the frustration expressed by parents, but it is just the beginning of a direction that will need to be carefully monitored by school authorities. It should be apparent to all that simply shifting a school to a charter system doesn’t guarantee success as a site of excellence in teaching and learning. While some studies have shown better results than from public schools, other studies have shown no improvement. The LAUSD has as much responsibility in the selection of a school operator as it does in its oversight. Selecting new management will be the key for low-performing schools. The goal is to stimulate innovation with rigorous and creative curriculum as well as with the provision of extra-curricular activities and an environment conducive to learning. In this respect, LAUSD needs to correct current problems with the division that addresses charter schools. Some administrators of smaller charter schools have complained that they do not receive the same treatment as larger operators, charging that they are measured by different standards and that the LAUSD guidelines lack consistency. On the other hand, the position of the teacher’s union to oppose change at all costs is disappointing. We believe that it would be far better for educators to search for the way to be part of this new initiative. Teachers like parents share the same goal —that children learn. Our support for the Board’s decision isn’t an ideological stance against public education at all; on the contrary, it is the search for alternatives given a dismal situation in which there are few options. It is now time for LAUSD and the Board to address the issues in the Charter Schools Division so that the new schools can be successful. It would be a huge mistake to believe that it is enough to simply hand over the schools to new management without making changes in the system’s administration and oversight.

Próximo paso del LAUSD Opinión | La Opinión 2009-08-30  -- La Junta Educativa del Distrito Escolar Unificado de Los Ángeles (LAUSD) votó esta semana en favor de abrir 250 escuelas a operadores privados en un intento de mejorar el aprendizaje de los alumnos. La acción es una respuesta positiva a la frustración de los padres, pero apenas es el comienzo de un camino que debe ser seguido de cerca por las autoridades escolares. Debe quedar en claro que por el sólo hecho que una escuela pase a ser administrada bajo el sistema charter no tiene garantizada su éxito como sitio de enseñanza. Hay estudios realizados que muestran mejores resultados que sus similares públicas y a otros que no indican mejoría alguna. En este aspecto el LAUSD tiene una responsabilidad en el otorgamiento de la escuela, como en su monitoreo. El proceso de selección de nuevos administradores será clave para las escuelas de bajo rendimiento. El propósito es alentar la innovación con un currículo exigente y creativo, al igual que proveer el ambiente necesario para el aprendizaje y las actividades extraescolares. El LAUSD en ese aspecto debe corregir problemas actuales dentro de su división que atiende las escuelas charter. Algunos administradores de estas escuelas se han quejado de no recibir el mismo trato que los operadores grandes, de ser perjudicados por que se los mide con varas diferentes y han denunciado una falta de consistencia general de parte de las guías del LAUSD. La misma queja ha surgido de integrantes de la Junta Educativa, que un día reciben reportes internos malos sobre una escuela para posteriormente recibir una buena recomendación y viceversa. Al mismo tiempo, desilusiona la actitud asumida por el sindicato de maestros quien ha recurrido a los tribunal para detener el cambio a toda costa. Creemos que sería mejor que los educadores buscarán la manera de ser parte de esta nueva iniciativa. Tanto padres como maestros tiene la misma meta de que los niños aprendan. Nuestro respaldo a la decisión de la Junta Educativa no es ideológico en contra de la educación pública, por el contrario es la búsqueda de alternativas ante un presente insostenible cuyos resultados no deja muchas opciones. Ahora es el turno de la Junta de hacer correcciones en la División de Escuelas Charter para que las nuevas escuelas puedan tener éxito. Sería un gran error creer que basta con entregar la dirección de las escuelas sin hacer cambios en la administración y supervisión de las mismas.

PLAN B/ROUND 1: The Mayor Has His Way – <cut …I mean> A New Way with LAUSD

By smf for 4LAKids

These WebPages mourn.

We mourn the death Tuesday night of "Liberal Lion" Teddy Kennedy - A champion if not THE champion of public education. As his friend Ramón Cortines said: "He was a friend of public education all the time, every day he was in office."

And we mourn the tragic outcome for public education in the LAUSD boardroom Tuesday afternoon with the passage of Yolie Flores Aguilar's "Public School Choice" Resolution.

Mr. Mayor, Mr. Barr …which schools do you choose?

We do not question Yolie's heart or her good intent. Her frustration at the lack of urgency of reform in LAUSD is heartfelt and genuine - but 4LAKids cannot miss the genesis of her plan and respectfully questions the authorship. Mayor Villaraigosa probably over describes his role as it being his "Plan B" - Plan A being his failed attempt at mayoral takeover and control, thrice quashed in the courts. But the fingerprints are there - and the confession: "my plan" - must mean something.

Despite public denial of the 'done deal" by the doers - and anguish and attempts-at-amendment and pretence-at-compromise, the Deal as realized was Done.

It wasn't pretty.

The list of advocate organizations named in whereas #5 grew with each draft as the 'me too's' tasted victory and wanted their logos on the t-shirt. A least one of the alphabet soup sponsors (and the most potentially powerful partner) withdrew their support at the last moment. Ultimately the entire list - the total active membership of which is probably a couple of thousand at most - was amended out.

ON THE DONE DEAL: According a speaker in public comment the mayor at one time claimed to have "six school board votes in his pocket".

All six came through Tuesday.

As Meredith Willson wrote:

Ya got one, two, three, four, five, six pockets in a table.
Pockets that mark the diff'rence
Between a gentlemen and a bum,
With a capital "B,"
And that rhymes with "P" and that stands for pool!

Friends, we got trouble right here in (L.A.) River City!

DONE DEAL II: A couple of weekends ago Board President Garcia had a soiree at her house and invited the Board of Ed and the superintendent. Apparently District Counsel Bobbi Fesler gave this get together her blessing - as long as the Boardmembers didn't discuss certain things. Like any pending or potential action before the board.

All well and good - if they didn't discuss those things.  As long as they didn't think about the elephant in the room.

• The Ralph M. Brown Act is an open meeting law - a by-invitation-only-meeting at anyone's house is not an open meeting in my appointment book …even if partners and the kiddies are invited!
• Make no mistake, the invitees were invited in their official capacity; the invitation is addressed  "Dear Board Members" – this was not "Dear Yolie, Tamar, Richard, Steve, Nuri and Marguerite".
• Of course I'm strict constructionist (What part of 'no!' is it you don't understand?) who considers the intent of the law rather than the wiggle room within it.

DONE DEAL III: After the big vote at Tuesday's meeting - but before the meeting was over and adjourned - the Board of Ed had special visitors: Mayor Villaraigosa and entourage! How kewl is that? And did Hizzonner stand in the well of the boardroom and congratulate the Board of Ed? No. He took the superintendent's chair up on the dais and sat therein -- master of all he surveyed. When Superintendent Cortines returned another chair had to be found for him.

• Fifty new schools, financed by $20 billion+ in public financing - schools the taxpayers are about to get higher tax bills for - are to be up for grabs. Charter operators? Mayor's Partnership? Jiffy Lube? C'mon down!*
• As an afterthought - or perhaps a 'leftover' - two hundred existing underperforming schools were added to the mix of schools up for grabs.

It remains to be seen how interested outside operators will be in taking over those "Program Improvement " schools in light of the Mayor's Partnership's record at his ten schools …and that of Green Dot at Locke.

The promise of 'Choice' in the resolution is the resolution is illusory. The charter school model  (parents choose their child's school) is incompatible with the neighborhood school model (all students attend their local school per attendance catchment areas). The lesson of the Belmont Zone of Choice (open enrollment within a greater geographic area) has apparently been lost completely. The YFA resolution commits the District to continue attendance area boundaries - if anything perpetuating lack-of-choice.

The Board of Ed chooses between operators who choose to apply. Yes, the resolution promises to involve parents and teachers and the community in the decision making process - but their role is advisory. The superintendent recommends; the Board of Ed decides. Who's 'Choice' is that?  How many 6 to 1 votes will it take before we realize what's going on?

I suppose operators get to choose whether to honor collective bargaining agreements; under some interpretations of the plan they may get to choose which education standards and provisions of the Ed Code they choose to observe.

Bill Ring, in last week's 4LAKids wrote: "…. true public school choice means I have a choice as a parent as to the school my child will attend."

"Me."

"I choose."

Bill wasn't allowed into the Boardroom Tuesday. There wasn't room for him. Or maybe his radical ideas.

Three speakers spoke extraordinary Truth to Power Tuesday afternoon:

Jackie Goldberg, the liberal lioness of L.A. politics presented the actual bond language of the five school construction bonds to the board. It may be language previous boards wrote but is nonetheless binding on this board because it was enacted overwhelming by the voters. "If this resolution passes," Ms Goldberg warned, "Have no doubt. You will be sued!"

Boardmember La Motte posed a couple of good questions but in the end questioned the Board's authority to give up any schools to anyone, citing the California Constitution, Article IX, §6, ¶3: "No school or college or any other part of the Public School System shall be, directly or indirectly, transferred from the Public School System or placed under the jurisdiction of any authority other than one included within the Public School System."

And Boardmember Zimmer - almost a tragic figure - spoke of his anguish, disputing the process and the outcome - bemoaning the raw politics and threats made against him by both sides. Decrying the fact that the fight was about the fight and the color of the t-shirts - not about the kids. Ultimately Zimmer held his nose and voted yes - in order, he said, to be at the table in the future.

Ms LaMotte retorted that she was not voting for it and she would be at the table too ...because that's what the people elected her to do.

As for Winners and Losers…

The parents in the light blue t-shirts, paid for by the mayor and Green Dot celebrated their victory and filed back onto the buses that bused them in.

As Jackie Goldberg said three years ago in the fight against Plan A, when adults fight with adults over adult issues it is always the kids who lose.

---

* OK, Jiffy Lube, a for-profit corporation is excluded. But the Jiffy Lube Educational Foundation? C'mon down!

THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED, HOT OF THE PRESS: Public School Choice: A New Way at LAUSD, v.2.0

When you strike out 'not adults' as in  'what is best for children – not adults' does that not open up the slippery slope to the adult menace?

Ms. Flores Aguilar, Dr. Vladovic, Ms. García - Public School Choice: A New Way at LAUSD

(Notice July 1, 2009) No earlier than 2 p.m.

Whereas, The Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District is responsible for ensuring that the District provides all students a high quality education, which enables them to graduate college-prepared and career-ready;

Whereas, The Board must do everything it can to enhance the educational opportunities provided to students attending District schools;

Whereas, School transformation efforts are needed to address the longstanding opportunity gap in academic performance in schools across District;

Whereas, While there are indications of growth in LAUSD schools, Ggiven the chronic academic underperformance of a significant number majority of public schools in the District, parents and communities have expressed a strong interest in playing a more active role in ensuring that students have more choice and access to high quality instructional programs;

Whereas, There has been a recent movement of parents, and communities, and labor partners throughout the entire district demanding better schools, with groups such as Alliance for a Better Community, Boyle Heights Learning Collaborative, East LA Education Collaborative, Families That Can, Inner City Struggle, The Parent Revolution, and the Southeast Cities Schools Coalition expressing a desire to play a more active role in shaping and expanding the educational options provided in their communities;

Whereas, The District is committed to engaging parents and the community in the quest to create diverse options for high quality educational environments, with excellent teaching and learning, for students’ academic success;

Whereas, The District has many outstanding schools that are setting a gold standard for

excellence (traditional schools, pilot schools, iDesign schools, charter schools, small schools, magnet schools and others); schools whose high quality academic, collaborative, inclusive, and innovative practices should be replicated at other schools to improve educational outcomes and allow more students and families to benefit;

Whereas, The Belmont Zone of Choice and its pilot schools model provides an example of what can be achieved with strong internal support and planning within teacher and administrator teams, and with robust collaboration with external partners, incorporating alternative collective bargaining agreements and other innovative collaborations;

Whereas, Developing an open process congruent with the ideas present in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) for school communities and internal and external stakeholders to submit

plans to operate new schools and Program Improvement 3+ (as authorized by NCLB), as well as a transparent and consistent process for selecting the plan that best meets the needs of students and families, supports the replication of successful schools and District transformation;

Whereas, the Board of Education respects the importance of employee rights and protections and expects that any plan proposed by the Superintendent will continue to protect workers' rights to freely organize into collective bargaining units;

Whereas, New schools provide a unique opportunity to establish a school’s culture and lay the groundwork for students’ academic success;

Whereas, Program Improvement 3+ schools require immediate attention and creative reform efforts, under strategies identified and authorized in NCLB, in order to provide an improved foundation for students’ academic success;

Whereas, More than fifty new schools will open in the District in the next three years, with twenty scheduled to open in the 2010-11 school year; and, more than 200 schools are in Program Improvement 3+ status;

Whereas, These new schools are intended to relieve overcrowding at existing schools, thereby enabling the existing schools to return to a traditional school year; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That through the Innovation and Charter Schools Division Superintendent, the Los Angeles Unified School District will invite operational and instructional plans from internal and external stakeholders, such as school planning teams, local communities, pilot school operators, labor partners, charters, and others who are interested in collaborating with the District or operatingto operate the District’s new schools and PI 3+ schools (as identified by the Superintendent and authorized under NCLB, beginning with PI 5+), in an effort to create more schools of choice and educational options for the District’s students and families;

Resolved further, That the Superintendent shall develop a plan to ensure existing internal stakeholder teams are positioned and supported to develop and put forth viable designs for new and existing schools identified;

Resolved further, That all providers who submit plans must be non-profit, public organizations open to all students;

Resolved further, That any plan submitted must guarantee that the new school will enroll the requisite number of students from the impacted campuses that the new school is intended to relieve, and that students coming from the attendance areas of the designated, overcrowded schools will be served first and foremost;

Resolved further, That the student composition at each new school must be reflective of the student composition at the schools it is intended to relieve (in terms of demographics, including but not limited to race/ethnicity, gender, socio-economic status, English Learners, Standard English Learners, Special Education, foster care placement), with ongoing review mechanisms in place to ensure retention and student composition at each school continues to reflect that of the overall school community;

Resolved further, That any plan submitted must address how the identified new or existing school will improve retention, graduation, and college-going rates among the student population identified above, by articulating evidence-based strategies for student retention and dropout prevention (including but not limited to early and comprehensive identification of student needs; academic intervention for struggling, English Language Learner, Standard English Learner and Special Education students; a personalized learning environment; positive behavior support and other student-centered school discipline frameworks; shared decision-making and inclusive governance; college and career preparation and entry); and parent and community engagement and participation- including proposals to coordinate with existing local parent and community organizations;

Resolved further, That the Superintendent secure local foundation funding to hire a lead person to assist with the implementation of this effort, so that General Fund resources are not used;

Resolved further, That the Board directs the Superintendent leader of this effort to work collaboratively with appropriate stakeholder and community over the next 90 30 days to report back to the Superintendent with recommendations regarding the following:

• Review and analyze research on new school instructional plans, and identify best practices Identify existing reform models and/or innovations that could be implemented at new schools and PI 3+ schools (as identified by the Superintendent and authorized under NCLB) beginning with the 2010-11 school year, as well as previous impediments to implementation within LAUSD and strategies for overcoming these obstacles
• Identify alternative governance and contract options within LAUSD for PI 3+ and new schools based on models from pilot schools, Expanded School-Based Management schools, and other successful national models
• Develop a template and process for submitting plans to operate PI 3+ schools (as identified by the Superintendent) and new schools, which include sustainable and scalable financial plans
• Develop criteria and accountability metrics for evaluating the plans submitted, including feedback from the appropriate local jurisdiction; criteria should include metrics for educational vision and leadership, instruction and curriculum (including how the school will serve all student populations, such as English Learners and Standard English Learners, and students with disabilities, including students with moderate to severe disabilities), staffing requirements, wrap-around services, community and parent engagement, prior experience and success, and others as appropriate
• Collect community feedback on the template, process, and evaluation criteria for the operational plans of new schools
• Develop an outreach strategy to educate and inform parents and communities, and sponsor forums that would allow for information, dialogue and engagement regarding: reform models, school governance options, and labor issues
• Develop a process – including, for each local district, committees composed of representatives of local parents, teachers, students, staff, administrators and community members – for school communities and stakeholders to evaluate the plans submitted and provide a recommendation to the Superintendent. The Superintendent will review all feedback and will make a recommendation that includes a summary of community input to the Board for their final approval. on their preferred partner in the operation of the school; such a The process must be objective, transparent, fair, and ensure no conflicts of interest
• Develop a process to engage all LAUSD bargaining unit employees to discuss the expansion of current reform efforts and development of new in-District school performance initiatives
• Develop a reauthorization process for operators of new and existing schools that is based on regular performance evaluations that include, but are not necessarily limited to, the criteria and metrics listed above
• Develop a process whereby parents, communities, and educators within a given attendance zone of any school that is in Program Improvement 3+ can work with the Superintendent to initiate reforms for the school

• Develop a facility use agreement for selected school operators – if outside the District – similar to those used for Proposition 39 co-locations, including requirements for maintenance and operations, and common areas such as green space, libraries, playgrounds, cafeterias, etc.

Resolved further, That if sufficient progress is not made in a timely manner, and/or if the work stalls due to an unwillingness of stakeholders to collaborate or move the work forward, the Superintendent be is directed to independently continue this team effort to ensure the work is completed;

Resolved further, That the Board directs the Superintendent to develop a plan to maintain continuity, quality, and consistency of support services to all LAUSD schools, including those operated by external partners, by requiring that all external partners submitting school plans under the process described in this Resolution enter into a facilities use agreement. The facilities use agreement must include a commitment to contract with LAUSD as the default provider of outsourced school facility support services, such as cafeteria, custodial, maintenance, security, supplies, and transportation services. The use agreement would further specify that LAUSD must meet agreed-upon performance standards for competitive contracted services. These standards must be met within an agreed-upon time frame. If the District fails to meet these standards within this timeframe, and a timely discussion (between the external partners, LAUSD, and classified labor partners) does not resolve the identified issues, then external partners may then contract with non-LAUSD providers for specified support services;

Resolved further, that all partners will agree to enter into discussion regarding the viability of master service agreements;

Resolved further, That the Superintendent report to the Board by September 30, 2009, with a transparent process for plans to be submitted, reviewed, and evaluated by internal staff and external stakeholders;

Resolved further, That the Superintendent will work with the Office of General Counsel to ensure compliance with state and federal laws and regulations, comprehensive labor agreements, the Modified Consent Decree and other court orders, and that innovation, reorganization and restructuring of schools must be accomplished in accordance with these mandates;

Resolved further, That every decision must be about student achievement and what is best for children – not adults – and how to provide all students them with the education they need and the future they deserve;

Resolved further, That by December 30 January 15, 20092010, the Superintendent will submit to the Board internal staff and external stakeholder’s recommendations for plans that should be approved by the Board for each new school opening during the Fall of 2010 and any PI3+ school designated by the Superintendent; and be it finally

Resolved, That the Superintendent report to the Board on a monthly basis to share progress made in accomplishing the specifics of this resolution.

Report from the First of the Districtwide Community Meetings: RE - BOARD RESOLUTION ON PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE

by smf for 4LAids

August 10th -- Democracy is not a pretty thing. It's her cousin, Liberty, who stands all statuesque with the aquiline nose in New York Harbor.

Nobody bothered to tart Democracy up for the debut engagement of her cross-city tour at Griffith Middle School Monday night. Some people didn't get the word that the venue for gala premiere event: "Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines Invites You To Attend a Community Meeting to Discuss How The District Opens New Schools and Improves Low-Performing Schools' had changed from Roosevelt High School to Griffith Middle School …and it didn't help that the school police at Roosevelt weren't sure where Griffith was. (It's about twenty blocks east.)

Once at Griffith it just Democracy, warts and all. And the audience was hungry for something besides what was being served. Newly Minted Interim Local District Superintendent Robert A. Martinez started off right on time with Slide One of his PowerPoint     …and made the mistake of asking for questions or comments right then and there.

There were a couple of hundred folks in the audience and a couple of hundred questions and comments - most generally centered on variants of the same three themes:

• The plan presented in the PowerPoint had the appearance of a done deal - based on models in New York, Chicago and Denver. Were the folks present, teachers, parents and community, being asked …or were they being told? And what exactly do New York, Chicago and Denver have to do with LA?
• Is this a plan to implement the Flores Aguilar "School Choice/School Giveaway" resolution before it is even voted on by the Board of Ed?
• There were few in the audience that support bringing in partners or charters or outside operators to run "their" schools. One charter operator spoke up - and one representative from the Parent Revolution spoke out - but for the most part the audience was not supportive of charters and/or the mayor's partnership or any outside operator operating their schools - and were pointed in their derision of Mayor Villaraigosa and Monica Garcia.

If it had been a dress rehearsal it wouldn't have been half bad - as a show it pretty entertaining. It was, however, nothing like the script. Much is said by the superintendent about transparency -- there's a joke in here somewhere about amateur night at the burlesque - let's just say we saw more than we were supposed to see.

Was the crowd, probably about 300+, representative of the community? Who knows, it was the crowd that turned out on short notice.

Were there a lot of UTLA members? Yes. Was it packed with UTLA members. No.

Was it an ugly crowd? No. Was it boisterous and assertive and sometimes angry? Yes. It listened - though not always politely - to things it didn't want to hear. It cheered and booed.

Duffy from UTLA made it clear that the union was not 'involved' in process, only 'aware' of it.

Superintendent Cortines mad it clear he was there to listen.

Some teachers made their grievances, as did some parents. Anyone who would say that the folks in attendance arere accepting of the status quo has had a little too much sweetener in their own Kool Aid.

These are folks who give a damn about public education in their community …and they're not going to take very much more of the same-old/same old or the new miracle cure for very much longer.

Which leads me to beat my drum about  Relational Trust.

One down, six more to go …and why does the valley, with the two largest-in-size local districts, get only one meeting?

Check here or the latest schedule - times and venues - and one suspects, the message - are subject to change!

 

And here's the feedback form.

AMID FISCAL CRISIS, L.A. GIVES SCHOOL SITE COUNCILS REINS

Published Online: July 14, 2009

Published in Print: July 15, 2009

By Stephen Sawchuk | Education Week

Los Angeles -- In theory, it is every school’s dream to control its own destiny, rather than having administrators impose spending plans and reform initiatives from the central office.

At Jefferson High School, one of the largest high schools here, a governing body made up of teachers, nonclassroom-based educators, parents, and Principal Michael Taft appears to be living the dream, to the extent such a thing is possible during a staggering fiscal crisis.

The leadership team, officially known as a “school site council,” has mainly used an infusion of federal stimulus funding to keep class sizes around 25 students. With its remaining money, it has preserved a successful “eighth period”—a mandatory after-school class for students struggling to pass the California High School Exit Exam, or CAHSEE, a graduation prerequisite.

The example sums up the goal of district leaders, who have allotted nearly $114 million in Title I economic-stimulus funds to school site councils like the one at Jefferson High to spend on their own needs.

Decentralized Decisionmaking

According to the California Education Code, school site councils are elected bodies charged with setting and measuring the effectiveness of improvement strategies at the school, seeking input from other school advisory committees, revising strategies and expenditures, and creating and monitoring the approved “single plan for student achievement”—a consolidated plan requested of schools receiving state or federal school improvement funding.

The councils are made up of:
• The principal
• Representatives of teachers selected by teachers at the school
• Other school personnel selected by peers at the school
• Parents of students attending the school selected by such parents
• Students selected by students attending the school (at the middle and high school levels)

Middle and high school councils are composed to ensure parity among the principal, classroom teachers, and other school personnel. additionally, they must ensure that equal numbers of parents or other community members selected by parents and students serve on the council.

SOURCE: California Education Code

“If parents and the community feel they have some responsibility, they’ll be accountable for the direction of the school,” said Ramon C. Cortines, the superintendent of the district. “When [a school] is faced with the draconian cuts I’ve made, ... [it] needs parents and the community to be engaged and involved on an ongoing basis.”

Decentralization has long been a rallying cry among constituents in this sprawling district of 700,000 students. But as some Los Angeles educators are discovering, it pays to be careful what you wish for.

The influx of money this year through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act carries much higher stakes for the site councils for several reasons. First, the funding will double some schools’ typical Title I allocations, and thus it will be closely scrutinized.

These are not funds for a rainy day; they are a stopgap. In preparing budgets, the councils have had to determine how many teaching positions to preserve, how small they can afford to keep class sizes, and which local initiatives are worth saving. Many are making those decisions for the first time.

In effect, the district has spread the decision about cutting programs and personnel from seven school board members to 700 councils.

The decentralization has been praised by some Los Angeles administrators for moving instructional policy closer to the schools. But it has raised the hackles of other administrators, some parent groups, and the teachers’ union.

“There was no transition plan to develop the capacity of these schools that in some cases received an embarrassment of riches,” said Bill Ring, who heads TransParent, a grassroots organization that seeks to increase parents’ voices in school decisions.

Back and Forth

Required by the California Education Code, the school site councils have been around since the 1970s. But the discretionary pots of money they oversee typically wax and wane depending on the current district leadership. Some superintendents have funneled more discretionary funding, including federal Title I aid for disadvantaged students, to the councils; others have chosen to manage those funds centrally.

Mr. Cortines, who became the district chief in 2008, has generally favored a more localized approach to school instruction. Previously, during a stint as Los Angeles’ interim superintendent, in 2000, he broke the district into subdistricts, each overseen by a superintendent.

His latest push for decentralizing is unusual, though, not only for the amount of money involved, but also in its timing.

As the councils geared up to meet this spring, Los Angeles officials watched as their tax revenues dropped and as Sacramento made a succession of cuts to state funding. To reduce the resulting shortfall, the school board canceled programming, sent out more than 4,000 layoff notices to teachers, and pared the central-office staff. Upon receiving its first stimulus allocations, the district put most of its state-stabilization money and eligible money from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act toward its bottom-line deficit. But officials also decided to pass the Title I stimulus dollars to the councils, rather than filling in holes centrally.

With the money, schools could, for instance, “buy back” classroom teaching positions that had been eliminated under the central budget. Alternatively, they could choose to maintain after-school tutoring, preserve the jobs of school psychologists and counselors, or hire instructional coaches to help teachers make sense of the data from periodic student assessments.

More Discretionary Aid

In addition, the district liquidated a centrally run coaching program and federal Title II teacher-quality funding and disbursed those dollars to schools—a change officials said provided more discretionary aid to schools receiving small or no allocations under Title I.

The district, the Los Angeles teachers’ union, and others collaborated on a series of training sessions for school-site-council personnel, beginning last winter. Part of that training included mock council meetings to give educators clear examples of good and poor collaborative decisionmaking.

Mr. Cortines also gave each school a lot of data on student demographics and test scores to help the councils as they set their budgets.

Mr. Taft, the Jefferson High principal, and members of that school’s team—while not in agreement on every detail—felt it was worthwhile to maintain classroom teaching positions and the eighth period, and they had three years of higher scores to back up their decisions.

“Because of the success we’ve had, our parents are getting more involved in their child’s education,” Mr. Taft said. “When their child comes home and says he passed the math portion of the CAHSEE, that’s like handing them a $20 bill. They can see it, they can feel it, they understand it.”

But others say that Mr. Taft’s experience has been the exception, not the norm. Mr. Ring of the parents’ group said that the district’s efforts to build schools’ capacity to spend the money wisely have so far only scratched the surface.

“It’s exposure, not culture change,” he said of the training.

The teachers’ union, meanwhile, has grown increasingly critical of the plan, saying it has unnecessarily compromised teachers’ jobs and raised class sizes. District figures show that schools have kept a significant number of nonclassroom positions, such as coaches.

The district, officials of United Teachers Los Angeles say, shouldhave spent the stimulus money centrally to ensure a minimum class size for all elementary students and to preserve more classroom teaching positions.

“I honestly don’t think Ray [Cortines] understood that you can’t just snap your fingers and go turn an authoritarian system into a decentralized one,” said Daniel Barnhart, a UTLA board member.

The union has also accused the district of pressuring principals on the councils to maintain reading coaches over classroom teachers, and it has filed 17 grievances alleging that schools didn’t staff or conduct their councils in accordance with state law.

“Decentralization is illusory,” said Sean Leys, a teacher at Lincoln High School who went on a well-publicized hunger strike to protest the layoffs. “Without a doubt, there are hundreds of school councils that show no oversight because they have no idea what the role of the council is.”

District Response

Monica Garcia, the president of the Los Angeles school board, concedes that the district has more work to do on training. But she argues that the district’s centrally mandated strategies were not always effective for all schools.

Schools likely to benefit most under the shift are big high schools like Jefferson, which serves 2,800 students, many disadvantaged. At Jefferson, Mr. Taft estimates that during the upcoming school year, the council will oversee a total of $8 million to $9 million in regular Title I money, stimulus funding, and other state and federal bilingual education grants, for instance.

“For the first time, our large high schools have a good chunk of money to do things with,” Ms. Garcia said. “I think that is probably the silver lining, that these large underperforming high schools got attention on what they needed, rather than what we prescribed.”

And district officials flatly deny the union’s charge that they have acted as puppetmaster over councils and principals.

“It’s very frustrating because [the union] supported decentralization in 2000,” Mr. Cortines said. “But it came to the bottom line. If [the council] didn’t spend the money the way UTLA wanted, it was wrong.”Michelle King, a local area superintendent in west Los Angeles, said that schools there did make classroom teachers a priority.

But councils nevertheless struggled with the buy-back process because of seniority provisions in the district contract, she said. Local schools budget classroom “positions,” so buy-backs do not guarantee the return of beloved instructors—merely teachers who fit the appropriate categories and are next on the seniority roll.

“I think of all the messages, that was the one we had to repeat over and over,” Ms. King said.

Still, Ms. King expects councils to take on more responsibilities over time, such as promoting school safety and ensuring spending is aligned with academic goals.

“[Decentralization] was a shock to the system, but it’s something the community has been asking for a long time,” she said.

Observers hope for the best, but some harbor doubts. David Tokofsky, a consultant for the principals’ union and a former school board member, worries not just about the logistics of the move, but has a philosophical concern, too.

While it may complete Mr. Cortines’ long-held decentralization plans, it may not satisfy the reform-minded rhetoric coming from President Barack Obama’s administration on the use of stimulus funds, he suggested.

“They say all politics are local politics. Well, in Los Angeles, we say all politics are ‘loco’ politics,” Mr. Tokofsky said. “And right now, the politics of the past are racing forward at the very time that Obama is putting more money and attention toward education.”

Coverage of leadership is supported in part by a grant from The Wallace Foundation, at www.wallacefoundation.org.