Mayor Sam explains it all for you....

...this chart trumps Roy's charts!

available as a t-shirt:

get one today!

NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARD ASSOCIATION NOTES PDK/GALLUP POLL DELIVERS STRONG MESSAGE ABOUT LOCAL GOVERNANCE & PUBLIC'S DISTASTE FOR MAYORAL TAKEOVER

Press Release from nsba.org

Alexandria, Va. – August 22 – Anne L. Bryant, executive director of the National School Boards Association, said that the 38th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward Public Schools released today delivers a strong message about the importance of local communities and local governance.

In a commentary invited and published by PDK as part of this year’s poll, Bryant noted that the poll continues to reflect “that the closer the public is to its schools, the higher it rates them. Interestingly, we see that a majority of the public prefers that local school boards have the greatest influence over what is taught in the public schools. School boards need to set local high academic goals that reflect state and national standards and also incorporate the needs and desires of their local communities.

“Further,” Bryant said in her commentary, “the poll shows the public’s distaste emerge for mayoral interference as nearly 70 percent of the public opposes having a mayor take over the public schools even as an answer to turning around low-performing schools. This public sentiment aligns closely with a recent policy adoption by our governing body that strongly opposed mayoral takeovers. Instead, mayors should work on other factors that impact academics such as crime, housing costs, and health care.”

She also noted that pre-school comes to the forefront this year, as a majority of respondents say that they would be willing to pay more taxes for funding preschool programs for children from low-income or poverty-level households. This is a dramatic increase over past years’ numbers and emphasizes the value the public puts on early childhood education.

Bryant noted that “The public continues to see funding as the biggest problem for public schools, which remains a concern for all of us as Congress backs away from its promise to fully fund programs that can make a difference for children who desperately need help.” This reinforces the results of NSBA’s own poll of 1,200 likely voters in which 70 percent of respondents said that Congress should restore funding for No Child Left Behind and special education programs in next year’s budget to the authorized levels.

To read the details of this year’s PDK/Gallup Poll, please visit www.pdkintl.org.

The National School Boards Association is a national federation of state school boards associations that represent more than 95,000 school board members who govern the nation’s public schools. The organization’s mission is to foster excellence and equity in public elementary and secondary education throughout the United States through local school board leadership.

FROM THE REPORT:

TABLE 13. In some communities that have a large percentage of low-performing public school students, the mayors have taken control of the entire public school system to attempt to correct the situation. If the public schools in your community had a large percentage of low-performing students, would you favor or oppose having the mayor take control of the schools?

	National Totals	No Children In School	Public School Parents
	'06 %	'06 %	'06 %
Favor	29	28	33
Oppose	67	69	63
Don't know	4	3	4

1) Findings.

a) While 58% still prefer that the local school board make decisions as to what is taught in local schools, that percentage is down from 68% in 1980.

b) The shift has been in the direction of the state level, where the percentage has grown from 15% to 26%.

c) The percentage saying the federal government should have the greatest influence has gone up from 9% to 14%.

d) Contracting out the operation of entire public school systems is now approved by 24% of respondents, down from 31% in 2002.

e) Having the mayor take over control of schools with a large number of low-performing students is favored by only 29%.

Conclusion: The public's preference is that the local school board make decisions about what the schools teach. Of those favoring decisions at the state or federal level, two-thirds opt for the state. True to its preference for change through the existing school system, the public opposes contracting with private firms for the operation of schools and having mayors take over schools with large numbers of low-performing students.

Linda Embrey

Communications Office

National School Boards Association

703-838-6737; lembrey@nsba.org; www.nsba.org;

also visit www.nsba.org/educationnewsstand

APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT: Be afraid, be very afraid!

Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary

    Senator Kevin Murray, Chairman

                           1381 (Nunez)

          Hearing Date:  8/14/06          Amended: 8/8/06

          Consultant:  Bob Franzoia       Policy Vote: Ed  7-2

          _________________________________________________________________ 

          ____

          BILL SUMMARY: AB 1381, to be known as the Gloria Romero  

          Educational Reform Act of 2006, relating to the governance of  

          the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), would do the  

          following:  

          1) Revise the authority and duties of the Board of Education  

          (BOE) inspector general.

          2) Create a Council of Mayors (COM) comprised of mayors from  

          each city within the attendance boundaries of LAUSD, who elect  

          to participate, and each member of the Los Angeles Board of  

          Supervisors whose district overlaps the attendance boundaries.

          3) Require the mayors' act by majority of the weighted vote of    

          the total membership of the COM and provide that the appointment  

          of the district superintendent shall be ratified by the COM.  

          4) Permit the district superintendent of the LAUSD to request,  

          after a public hearing, that the State Board of Education (SBE)  

          waive all or part of the Education Code, except as specified  

          (generally authority of a governing board to seek waivers and  

          personnel contracts for classified employees), and would deem  

          the waiver granted for two years, if the SBE fails to take  

          action on the request by its second regular meeting, or 60 days  

          after, receipt of the request, whichever comes first.

          5) Authorize the superintendent to make employment decisions  

          related to all certificated and classified management personnel  

          of his or her office and to assign principals. 

          6) Authorize the BOE to employ a pool of administrative staff to  

          serve all members of the board, require staff to report to the  

          board as a whole, and prohibit an individual member of the board  

          from employing individual staff.  

          7) Require the superintendent to make all employment decisions  

          for all nonrepresented LAUSD personnel.  

          8) Require the superintendent to develop and manage a facilities  

          program for the LAUSD.

          9) Require the LAUSD and the COM conduct, by 1/1/2008, the first  

          periodic comprehensive, identification, mapping, and assessment  

          of available services for children and require the LAUSD and the  

          COM identify private resources to conduct the assessment.

          10) Grant the superintendent authority to negotiate and execute  

          contracts, except collective bargaining contracts, on behalf of  

          the LAUSD, and report all executed contracts to the LAUSD BOE.

          11) Authorize the COM to create a committee of parents of  

          students in the LAUSD to provide input on the education related  

          matters considered by the COM and on the effective delivery of  

          services.  The LAUSD would be required to assist the COM in  

          conducting outreach to parents in creating such a committee. 

          12) Require the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, in partnership  

          with the LAUSD, to, as part of a demonstration project, have  

          oversight over three clusters of the lowest-performing schools  

          in different geographic areas with the City of Los Angeles.

          13) Specify the purposes of the demonstration project, and  

          require all authority exercised by the LAUSD board and the  

          superintendent with respect to the schools in

                                   - 1 -

          Page 2

          AB 1381 (Nunez)

          the demonstration project to be transferred to the partnership,  

          as   specified.

          14) Require the Legislative Analyst to contract for an evaluator  

          to conduct an interim evaluation of the effectiveness of  

          specified LAUSD programs to be completed by 1/1/2008, and  

          conduct a final evaluation by 1/1/2011.

          15) Provide the article shall remain in effect until 1/1/2011.

          _________________________________________________________________ 

          ____

 Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions         2006-07      2007-08       2008-09     Fund

 State mandates

           - COM support         Unknown new program or higher  

          levelGeneral

                                 of service

          - LAUSD/COM parent     Unknown, potentially significant  

          costs,General

            outreach             potentially on going

          - LAUSD/COM services   Unknown, potentially major cost one  

          timePrivate/

            assessment           by 1/1/2008 (cost pressure to the  

          extentGeneral

                                 private funds are not secured)

          - Facilities program   Unknown, potentially major costs  

          ongoing General

                                                 (see staff comments)

          - community partnership            Estimated $360  

          annuallyGeneral

            program

          - community partnershipPotential mandate to LAUSD for  

          admin-General

            administration       istrative support of partnership schools

          LAO assessment oversight       $125 annually through 1/1/2011    

          General*

                  assessment contract         $200         $400  $400    

          General       

          * Proposition 140        

          _________________________________________________________________ 

          ____

          STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the  

          Suspense File.

          The optional inspector general would have access to all  

          contracts and contracting processes in order to enable review  

          for violations of law or conflicts of interest and shall report  

          quarterly to the BOE regarding any findings.  These reports  

          would be provided to the COM.  Because the LAUSD has the option  

          of appointing an inspector general, any requirements placed on  

          the position by the bill would not be a new program or higher  

          level of service and thus not reimbursable.

          It is unclear if the bill limits or otherwise defines the duties  

          of affected local entities as they relate to this bill.  This  

          leaves numerous, and potentially very costly, decisions with

                                   - 2 -

          Page 3

          AB 1381 (Nunez)

          the Commission on State Mandates.  For example, given that most  

          mayors are likely not familiar with the operations of a school  

          district, mayors may seek advisors to help them make informed  

          decisions relating to their duties on the COM.  (The same may  

          apply to members of the LA County Board of Supervisors.)  These  

          duties would include ratification of a superintendent, budget  

          approval, and review of the SARC.   How the Commission on State  

          Mandates would interpret the scope of the mandate, and a request  

          for reimbursement, is unknown. 

          The bill fragments lines of responsibilities such that it is  

          unclear who parents with concerns about the education of their  

          children are to contact.  For residents of the City of Los  

          Angeles, will they be able to contact the mayor with their  

          concerns.  For non Los Angeles residents, is it their mayor who  

          does not have authority to hire the superintendent?  Is it the  

          BOE which would have its authority limited by the bill?  The  

          only concession is that the bill provides that the COM, in the  

          course of conducting its duties, may create a committee of  

          parents in the LAUSD, to provide input on the education related  

          matters considered by the COM.  The bill requires the district  

          to assist the COM in conducting outreach to parents in the  

          creation of that committee.  At best, this committee enables  

          parents to contact other parents.  Staff recommends the  

          committee consider amending the bill as follows:

          Education Code 35911 (h) is added to read:

                        (h)  The district superintendent shall establish  

          an Office of Parent Communication which may be staffed by an  

          ombudsperson or similar employee.  The office shall assure that  

          the district complies with the processes for receiving and  

          addressing parent complaints set forth in Section 35186 and  

          shall assure that the district complies with the requirements  

          regarding parent information and the rights of parents to  

          participate in the education of their children set forth in  

          Section 51101.  The office shall regularly report to the  

          district superintendent and to the board regarding the  

          district's compliance with those sections.

          Education Code 35931(a) (3) is added to read:

                        (3)  The full-time district employee specified in  

          paragraph (2) shall perform the functions of the Office of  

          Parent Communication set forth in subdivision (h) of Section  

          35911 for the cluster of schools to which he or she is assigned.

          Staff notes any proposal to maintain parental access creates a  

          potentially costly mandate.

          The bill requires the superintendent to develop and manage a  

          facilities program for the LAUSD.  The program may include, but  

          not be limited to, the development of a strategic plan regarding  

          facilities for the LAUSD and the management of all phases of  

          construction of school facilities of the district.  (Staff notes  

          it is unknown if it is the intent of the author to create a new  

          program with new authority or transfer existing authority.)   

          This requirement raised two concerns.  First, it creates a  

          potentially open ended

                                   - 3 -

            Page 4

          AB 1381 (Nunez) 

          mandate whose costs may only be determined at some later date by  

          the Commission on State Mandates.  Second, it is not clear if  

          the BOE continues to maintain its current authority e.g., to  

          place school construction bonds on the ballot, to impose  

          developer fees, to locate schools, etc.  Staff recommends the  

          committee decide how to address these conflicts.  If the  

          committee decides the superintendent is the appropriate entity  

          to manage a facilities program, some limits should be imposed in  

          order to prevent the potential for a major mandate claim in  

          future years.  At the same time, the committee should decide  

          what authority will be retained by the BOE and what authority  

          will be provided to the superintendent.

          Staff recommends a general amendment to clarify that where the  

          bill does not specify a transfer of duties or responsibilities,

         all powers shall remain with the BOE. 

          The bill provides that the COM is subject to the Brown Act and  

          the Political Reform Act.  Staff recommends the bill be amended  

          to add the Public Records Act.

          In addition, the administrative costs of the Mayor's community  

          partnership program also could be a reimbursable mandate as it  

          establishes a parallel administrative structure for managing the  

          low-performing schools. Since the bill requires the transfer of  

          all authority of the BOE and superintendent to the partnership    

          (except for collective bargaining) which is headed by the Mayor,  

          it's not clear whether these mandated costs could be paid with  

          Proposition 98 funds.  The bill does state that the schools in  

          the partnership would be funded "with existing resources," which  

          is interpreted to mean the schools remain eligible for  

          Proposition 98 funds.  Staff recommends the bill be amended to  

          clarify that the partnership would be recognized as a local  

          educational agency for the purposes of Proposition 98 and that  

          all costs of the partnership be funded from existing resources.

          It is unclear how the partnership, a  

          "district-within-a-district" will co-exist with the LAUSD.  For  

          example, who will have responsibility for maintenance?  Who will  

          have responsibility for staff development, curriculum decisions,  

          collecting and submitting data, providing the accounting and  

          other fiscal accountability duties of the district, and so  

          forth?  As noted in the Fiscal Impact, creation of the  

          partnership could create new Proposition 98 mandates for LAUSD,  

          separate from those of the partnership, because of the need to  

          work with this new "district" in determining  

          roles/responsibilities and the ongoing management partnership.

          The bill requires the LAO   to contract for an evaluator to  

          develop a progress report on the implementation of the specified  

          programs to be completed by 1/1/2008, conduct a final evaluation  

          by 1/1/2011, and report to the Legislature with recommendations.  

            Oversight of an evaluation of this scope would likely require  

          a full time staff person.  To evaluate the reforms, it would be  

          important to understand how the governance changes led to the  

          program changes underlying any changes in outcomes or processes. 

           Thus, it would be best to have an evaluator on board early in  

          the reform process, requiring funding in 2006-07.  Given that  

          the LAO spent $1 million over three years to evaluate charter  

          schools, this evaluation would be at least as expensive.  It is  

          possible, however,

                                   - 4 -

          Page 5

          AB 1381 (Nunez)

          given the timing of the next district superintendent's contract  

          as noted above, initial change may not occur until 1/1/2010.   

          Staff recommends the bill be amended to let a contract and  

          conduct the evaluation only upon selection of the superintendent  

          by the COM. Additionally, staff recommends the bill be amended  

          to require the SDE be the contracting entity.  The SDE has an 

          evaluation division that has successfully contracted for  

          significant studies of special education, Proposition 227, and  

          school accountability, among others.  An advisory committee with  

          the LAO and the Department of Finance would provide legislative  

          and fiscal oversight.

Mayor's Schools Battle Appears Puzzling, Risky

George Skelton, Capitol Journal | LA Times

August 17, 2006 - Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's legislation to gain some power over Los Angeles schools always has puzzled me, and I've got at least three questions.

• Why is this a piece of legislation anyway? Why aren't L.A. voters deciding how their schools should be run, rather than Sacramento politicians?

• How does Villaraigosa getting involved help the schools — especially now that the legislation has been negotiated to the point where the mayor represents just another layer of authority? How does diffusing power increase accountability?

• Politically, what's the guy thinking? Not only has this ambitious politician been making enemies in his first major endeavor as mayor, he's setting himself up for potential failure about the time he runs for reelection in three years.

The bill nearing Senate passage is as complicated as one of those paella recipes. But these are some highlights:

It would require selection of the L.A. schools superintendent to be ratified by a new council of mayors, consisting of L.A.'s and the other 26 cities' within the huge district. Because of L.A.'s size — and the way the bill is written — Villaraigosa could ratify the superintendent by himself. But he would need some votes of other mayors to veto the school board's choice.

The council of mayors — with L.A.'s exercising by far the loudest voice — also could advise on superintendent recruiting, district budgeting and school building sites. But the superintendent would get more control over the budget and school sites, taking present power from the board.

Perhaps most important for Villaraigosa, he himself could take over three low-performing high schools and all their elementary and middle feeder schools, perhaps 40 in all. That's a big risk. Since when did Villaraigosa become an expert at education reform?

Villaraigosa was in the Capitol on Monday — lobbying legislators, testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee and pushing his cause on TV.

I caught up with him in a vacant 1800s-era committee room. It was midafternoon, and he was digging into a carton of chicken-and-vegetable takeout from the basement cafeteria. "Ah, this is perfect," he told a staffer. "This has got a little protein."

I asked my questions.

Why not let citizens of the L.A. Unified School District vote on this? Why go around them to Sacramento?

"Look, these matters come before the Legislature all the time," the former Assembly speaker began, not convincingly.

Then he added: "We can't wait for a plebiscite. We need reform now."

But Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), a coauthor of the bill, conceded to the Senate committee: "We didn't want to get this caught up in a political campaign."

They could very well lose. Private polling, according to one district source, shows that voters are split evenly on the issue.

The Capitol is much easier pickings. The bill is a virtual lock for passage.

Villaraigosa has many allies here, especially Nuñez and the other coauthor, Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles). The scenario many pols envision is Villaraigosa getting elected governor in 2010, followed by Nuñez succeeding his friend as mayor. That enhances Villaraigosa's clout.

So do the endorsements for the mayor's bill by the L.A. City Council and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce — and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's promise to sign the measure before it even had been written.

"What you don't know," Schwarzenegger told me, "is that Antonio and I meet regularly…. So I have had long conversations with him about what he wants to do about education, how he wants to take over the school system. So it's not like I would say, blindly, 'Whatever it is,' because I know of his plan.

"That's why I say I'm for it. Then it's up to him what he wants to negotiate."

Schwarzenegger also must be impressed by the fact that Democrat Villaraigosa has not endorsed the Democratic candidate for governor, Treasurer Phil Angelides.

Villaraigosa said he'll endorse Angelides after his school bill passes. Why wait? "Because this is my priority."

And how does his getting involved help schools?

By using his "bully pulpit" and putting a "spotlight" on schools, he said, adding that "a mayor has the ability to marshal resources that a school board doesn't — private and public."

What would he do with the money? "We're looking at longer school days, Saturday schools, charters…."

But wouldn't there be too many cooks — the board, the superintendent, the mayor?

"It's a partnership," the mayor insisted. "Right now, you have seven school board members going like this" — he points in different directions. "They micromanage the school system [and] have refused to engage in the reforms that we need."

This, of course, is vehemently disputed by outgoing Supt. Roy Romer, who points to undeniable progress in reading and math test scores and a historically huge school-building program.

Just not fast enough, Villaraigosa contends.

But what if he can't improve things any faster? Won't he pay the political price?

He dismisses the idea: "I'm going to use the bully pulpit to make this work. I got elected because people are looking for bold leadership. I didn't get elected to watch."

Villaraigosa won't say so publicly, but he'll probably get heavily involved in next year's school board elections — a la former Mayor Richard Riordan — in an effort to stack the board with allies. Then he'd have more than a "bully pulpit." He'd have a friendly board.

More immediately, however, the mayor and his Capitol allies should make sure that they're not cutting a deal just for a deal's sake. Politicians love deals. But they're only momentary victories.

Over time, a deal can propel or pummel a politician. This deal likely will do one or the other to Villaraigosa.

A letter from School Board President Marlene Canter

August 16, 2006

Dear Friends,

On behalf of the Los Angeles Unified School Board and Superintendent Romer,
I am proud to announce that student test scores in the LAUSD are continuing
to rise for the sixth straight year, according to official state data
released this week.

LAUSD's elementary and middle schools outpaced statewide gains in English
language arts, and State Superintendent Jack O'Connell praised the LAUSD for
our upward momentum in scores - which he says show "the district is on the
right track." I invite you to find out more, by following these links:

• Press release: LAUSD Test Scores Improve for the 6th Straight Year

• Charts and highlights from STAR testing, 2006

• Los Angeles Times: Test Scores Provide Payoff for School Reforms

In addition, I invite you to review three recent articles from the Los
Angeles Times, concerning the District and Assembly Bill 1381 - state legislation sponsored by the Mayor of Los Angeles that would drastically change the governance structure of the LAUSD:

• A comparative analysis of the achievement data that you've been hearing from the Mayor's offices and from LAUSD

• A graphic that answers the question, Is L.A. Unified Failing?

• A report on the latest AB 1381 hearing in Sacramento

Thank you for your attention to these important matters, and I look forward
to continuing our dialogue.


Sincerely,


/s/Marlene Canter
Board President
Los Angeles Unified School District

marlene.canter@lausd.net
Phone: 213-241-6387
Fax: 213-241-8453

UPDATE+ADDITIONAL LINKS: New Harvard Studies on Mayoral Leadership in Education

"While we recognize the potential for increased mayoral involvement in public schooling, we have some concerns about it, especially in its most dramatic iteration — mayoral takeovers of school districts.

"Mayoral takeovers in major U.S. cities have been occurring since 1991, when Boston jettisoned its elected school board in favor of a new board appointed exclusively by the mayor. Other cities followed: Chicago in 1995, Cleveland in 1998, Detroit in 1999, and New York City in 2002.

"With fifteen years of history to draw on, some conclusions now can be made about whether this takeover movementhas fully lived up to the optimistic predictions of its proponents — predictions that are now being echoed in Los Angeles.

"In our view, the answer is clear: It has not."

— The Editors of the Harvard Educational Review – based on five studies
Mayoral Takeovers in Education: A Recipe forProgress or Peril?
published in the Summer 2006 issue

The commentary above refers to the article, Mayoral Leadership in Education: Current Trends and Future Directions. (Click to read an excerpt from this article. The full article – and other articles are available by paid subscription.) Check your library.

Mayors and Public Education: The Case for Greater Involvement (Click to read excerpt)
Michael D. Usdan

Michael D. Usdan notes that while mayoral involvement in education is often advanced as a way to make school systems less political by diminishing the sometimes fractious politics of school boards, mayors themselvesmay be tempted to politicize the schools in self-serving ways.

The Maturing Mayoral Role in Education
Michael W. Kirst and Fritz Edelstein

In “The Maturing Mayoral Role in Education,” Michael W. Kirst and Fritz Edelstein describe how mayoral involvement in public education was transformed from an emblem of municipal corruption at the turn of the twentieth century to the hallmark of a new view of the mayoralty in the 1990s that focuses on municipal agency efficiency and problem-solving. Looking at mayoral engagement in education today, the authors delineate a basic typology of different levels of mayoral involvement in education, arguing that mayors must accurately assess their local context and their own capacity if they are to succeed in making a positive impact in education.

The Political Dynamics of Mayoral Engagement in Public Education
Kenneth K. Wong

Kenneth K. Wong builds on this basic framework in “The Political Dynamics of Mayoral Engagement in Public Education.” Wong examines the political and economic factors of cities that have compelled mayors to get more involved in education and discusses the specific ways mayors have spent their political capital in exercising such leadership. Wong argues that mayors have unique skill sets that can be brought to bear in the service of school systems, such as the ability to mobilize public support for education, strengthen school accountability, increase the managerial capacity of school districts, and manage intergovernmental relations.

Getting Hold of District Finances:A Make-or-Break Issue for Mayoral Involvement in Education
Paul T. Hill

In “Getting Hold of District Finances: A Make-or Break Issue for Mayoral Involvement in Education,” Paul T. Hill calls attention to a little-studied but critical aspect of school system reform: the nontransparent and sometimes illogical ways school districts allocate funds and personnel, especially teachers. Drawing on a series of studies produced by his Center for Reinventing Public Education, Hill asserts that mayors who seek to reform their schools need to untangle the tendrils of school district accounting practices, and he warns that mayors who attempt large-scale school reform without first attempting to understand their district’s financial and personnel practices do so at their peril.

Using Mayoral Involvement in District Reform to Support Instructional Change
Warren Simmons, Ellen Foley, and Marla Ucelli

Finally, Warren Simmons, Ellen Foley, and Marla Ucelli explore mayors’ capacity to foster school-level improvement in “Using Mayoral Involvement in District Reform to Support Instructional Change.” These authors contend that so far, mayoral efforts to reform public education have fostered shorttermchanges to school districts but have largely failed to spur more meaningful changes at the school and classroom levels. They offer several strategies mayors can use to deepen their impact on teaching and learning, such as creating portfolios of schools and replicating attributes of successful school districts in their own reform efforts.

- are available by paid subscription. Check your library.

4LAKids will make these articles available when and if they become available.

MAYORAL TAKEOVERS IN EDUCATION: A RECIPE FOR PROGRESS OR PERIL?

The new issue of the Harvard Educational Review presents five essays on the growing phenomenon of mayoral involvement in U.S. schools. The authors agree that most mayoral involvement in education – including takeovers -- is grounded in the mayors’ genuine desire to make their schools better. And while the authors also agree that the impact of this involvement is usually more salutary than detrimental, they offer some cautions as well.

· For example, Michael D. Usdan notes that while mayoral involvement in education is often advanced as a way to make school systems less political by diminishing the sometimes fractious politics of school boards, mayors themselves may be tempted to politicize the schools in self-serving ways.

· Michael W. Kirst and Fritz Edelstein write approvingly of the "maturing" of the mayoral role in education in the present, but point out that a century ago, mayors’ corrupt use of their power over education is what led to the development of independently elected school boards in the first place.

· Kenneth K. Wong describes how mayors have used their political capital to build institutional support for education, expand the managerial capacity of school districts, and promote better working relationships between school districts and other levels of government. However, he also observes that these mayor-driven policy efforts can run the risk of marginalizing communities with less political clout.

· Paul T. Hill offers a broad caution, warning that mayors can easily get caught in the thicket of central office finance systems unless they first make a serious attempt to understand this complex aspect of school district affairs.

· Finally, Warren Simmons, Ellen Foley, and Marla Ucelli observe that while mayoral involvement in education often spurs short-term organizational efficiencies in school districts, mayors must move beyond superficial reorganization to promote meaningful changes to the instructional core of schools and classrooms.

We can all agree that mayoral involvement in education has the potential to improve schools. After all, when a mayor makes a public commitment to improve his or her city’s public schools, this creates an electoral incentive to actually follow through. On the other hand, while it is true that school board elections typically have low voter-turnout rates and are often influenced by powerful organized interests like business coalitions and teachers unions, school boards retain one big advantage: They are the only mechanism that provides a direct point of entry for citizens -- especially parents -- to express their concerns about education to the very officials who make education policy.

http://gseweb.harvard.edu/hepg/commentary_HER_v76n2.pdf

Constitutional challenges for the constitutionally challenged: A visual aid

Connecting the Dots | Following the Money: FRIENDS IN HIGH-RISE PLACES

4LAKids Q: So what do Westside developers have to do with public education in LA?

4LAKids A: Read on, gentle reader – read on.

Developers make big plans for Westside, write big checks for Antonio.

By DAVID ZAHNISER | LA Weekly

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - The homeowner associations that cover much of the Westside let out a collective groan last March after developer Beny Alagem unveiled plans for dramatically remaking the Beverly Hilton — razing the tiki bar known as Trader Vic’s and building two 13-story condominium towers on the site.

After all, neighborhood leaders had learned only two weeks earlier that another developer planned to add 262 condos to the Westfield Century City shopping center on Santa Monica Boulevard, just blocks from Trader Vic’s. And a third developer had already spent weeks pushing for city approval of two 47-story condominium towers nearby.

Community groups in and around Century City found a new reason to worry last week: Developers of all three projects have poured a combined $275,000 into Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s campaign to seize power at the Los Angeles Unified School District, making them three of the takeover campaign’s five largest contributors.

The huge sums have created a corridor of contributions along Santa Monica Boulevard in a section of Los Angeles where many intersections are ranked “F,” the worst possible grade in the city’s congestion rating system. The contributions also rattled neighborhood volunteers like Barbara Broide, a board member with the Westside Neighborhood Council, who questioned whether the contributors are seeking something other than a new governance structure for L.A. Unified.

“[The money] influences the process,” Broide said. “And this whole episode shows more than anything the need for public financing of our city elections, and for cleaning up the rules that govern campaign donations.”

Reports filed Friday showed that Villaraigosa raised nearly $1.1 million as of June 30 for his Committee for Government Excellence and Accountability, which is waging an aggressive public-relations campaign promoting a bill pending in Sacramento that would give Villaraigosa veto power over the hiring and firing of L.A. Unified’s superintendent.

Alagem, the owner of the Beverly Hilton project, gave Villaraigosa’s school committee $75,000. A second developer, Chicago-based AP Properties, donated another $100,000 on June 7, two weeks after a hearing on its proposal to build 483 condominium units across three buildings — two 47-story towers and a 12-story loft building, all in Century City. (AP Properties is an affiliate of JMB Realty, which is more frequently named as the project’s developer.)

Westfield Corp., owner of Century City’s well-known mall, wrote its own $100,000 check to the mayor’s committee on June 27, two days before the first public meeting on its own development proposal, which would expand the shopping center by more than 100,000 square feet.

“What this does clearly is give access to the Mayor’s Office — good access. He will call them back,” said Robert Stern, president of the Center for Government Studies, which has called for greater restrictions on fund raising for campaigns like Villaraigosa’s. “We’re not talking about $3,000 or $4,000 here. These are major contributions.”

When Villaraigosa ran for mayor, developers were permitted to give him no more than $2,000 apiece — $1,000 in the primary and $1,000 in the runoff. Because he is waging an issue-based campaign, however, there are no limits on the amount he may seek. The school donations are among the largest raised by City Hall since former Mayor James Hahn collected six-figure contributions for L.A. United, the campaign that defeated San Fernando Valley secession in 2002.

Nathan James, a spokesman for the mayor’s political-action committee, could not say how the mayor chose the contributors. But he confirmed that Villaraigosa made the calls personally, adding that the money is needed to counter a costly public-relations campaign against the mayor’s school initiative being waged by L.A. Unified at taxpayer expense.

James maintained that contributors who gave money to Villaraigosa did so because they know that the quality of public schools affects the Los Angeles economy. “I think the conclusion that you can draw from the folks who have donated to the committee is that they share an enthusiasm and a willingness to support the mayor’s efforts to reform LAUSD,” he added.

Traffic and development are among the most sensitive political issues on the Westside, where homeowner groups have hired lawyers and even their own traffic consultants to scrutinize megaprojects. When JMB Realty/AP Properties released an environmental-impact report for its 47-story condo towers, a coalition of 10 neighborhood groups responded with a 55-page, highly technical letter criticizing the document.

The homeowner coalition insists the city understated the amount of traffic that will be generated by the towers. Jonathan Broad, a lawyer and Beverly Hills resident who plans to sue Los Angeles over its review process for the JMB project, said the contributions reinforced his worst suspicions. “It just makes me even more cynical,” he said.

Representatives of JMB and Alagem said both contributors have a long history of giving to philanthropic causes — money that is not tied to any specific development. “We have substantial investments in Los Angeles, and we participate in the community,” said JMB spokeswoman Joan Kradin.

Both the towers and the Westfield mall project are in the district represented by Los Angeles Councilman Jack Weiss, a close ally of the mayor. Although Alagem’s Beverly Hilton project is in Beverly Hills, Westside neighborhood leaders argue that Los Angeles officials should aggressively review it, since its traffic will pour onto Los Angeles streets.

Political-contribution reports show that Villaraigosa’s school-initiative supporters span the ideological spectrum, with influential Republican businessmen providing the money and established Democratic Party political consultants getting paid to provide the services. The committee spent $25,000, for example, on SCN Public Relations, a Democratic opposition-research firm whose main consultant, Ace Smith, played a huge role in Villaraigosa’s successful 2005 mayoral campaign.

Although Villaraigosa is one of the Democratic Party’s rising stars, more than half of his committee’s funds came from many of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s biggest contributors. Univision executive Jerry Perenchio, who gave Villaraigosa’s school committee $500,000, has spent nearly $6.4 million in the last 18 months on Schwarzenegger, the California Republican Party and the governor’s various ballot initiatives.

Alagem, the Beverly Hills developer, has given Schwarzenegger $355,000 — making him the governor’s 22nd most lucrative contributor, according to the Web site ArnoldWatch.Org. And retired investment banker Frank Baxter, who gave Villaraigosa’s committee $50,000, spent five times that amount on a Schwarzenegger ballot measure to keep union dues from being spent on political campaigns.

Baxter also has been active in the Club for Growth, a political-action committee that funds hard-line fiscal conservatives. That committee tried without success last year to defeat Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, saying he is too moderate on tax cuts and too often opposes the confirmation of conservative judges. But it succeeded in ousting Senator Tom Daschle, the South Dakota Democrat.

Teachers union activist Paul Huebner, a critic of Villaraigosa’s school plan, accused the mayor of straying from his progressive roots as he embraces more and more Republican campaign contributors. James disagreed, saying Villaraigosa wants his initiative to be a bipartisan effort. “The bottom line is, it’s not what party you’re from, but whether it’s going to be good for L.A.,” he said.

Whether Villaraigosa will turn to other conservatives — or Century City developers — for more money won’t be known until next year. Under the city’s disclosure rules, his school-takeover committee will not need to divulge any contributions until January 31 — weeks after his school legislation is scheduled to go into effect.

Which Way L.A.? School Reform, Campaign Money and the Law

LA Weekly's David Zahniser guested on the KCRW radio show Thursday, August 3rd: listen online HERE

Debate over who should control Los Angeles schools has produced some nasty political rhetoric from both sides, becoming LA's hottest political issue since the ill-fated drive for Valley succession. Now it's devolving into disputes about fundraising, and legislative analysts in both the State Capitol and City Hall say Mayor Villaraigosa's plan might be unconstitutional. The Mayor has accepted huge contributions for school reform from developers who will need his approval for controversial projects. The school board is spending tens of thousands of public dollars to defeat the Villaraigosa's effort. Now, We try to sort it all out with some of the players, including the author of an article in today's LA Weekly on developers' contributions to Villaraigosa and lawyers from both sides.

WWLA Guests:

DAVID ZAHNISER

Staff Writer for the LA Weekly

GLORIA ROMERO

State Senate Majority Leader, her district includes East LA, Lincoln Heights and City Terrace

KEVIN REED

Chief Counsel for the Los Angeles Unified School District

THOMAS SAENZ

Chief Counsel to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

The Times & City Journal: Pickin' 'n Choosin'

Sunday's LA Times Current [the Op-Ed section] has a fascinating article by Gerry Garibaldi: HOW THE SCHOOLS SHORTCHANGE BOYS – "In the newly feminized classroom, boys tune out" - abridged from the quarterly City Journal. [The link will take you to original version.]

While the Times Editorial Board was selecting education articles to reprint from City Journal they coulda/shoulda chosen the REORGANIZING THE REORGANIZATION: Mayor Bloomberg begins backtracking on education by Sol Stern [following] …except that it sorta/kinda flies in the face of their own editorial policy – and in the face of last week's LAT Opinion piece supposedly co-authored by New York Mayor Bloomberg.

When comparing Ed Reform in The Big Apple to The Big Orange it's helpful to remember these two points:

· NYC mayoral takeover was instituted to undo the decentralization reforms instituted by Ramon Cortines when he was Chancellor of NYC Schools.

· Ramon Cortines is currently Mayor Villaraigosa's chief education advisor.

There was a country song once that went: "You can't have your Kate and Edith too." The Times and Bloomberg need to download that to their Ipods. Antonio to his BlackBerry.

ON SUNDAY The Times Editorial Board also kicked off a four part series LEARNING FROM BOSTON – to coincide with the Showdown in Sacramento next week at the Senate Appropriations Committee.

4LAKids is going to try to reserve comment until the whole series comes out – but your feedback or comments are welcome! And there is the very real probability I will be unable to resist! –smf

LEARNING FROM BOSTON: School Reform Done Right

Reorganizing the Reorganization: Mayor Bloomberg begins backtracking on education.

from the Summer '06 CITY JOURNAL | by Sol Stern

In the four years since he took control of the biggest school system in the country, Mayor Mike Bloomberg seems to have learned a few lessons. For one, he now apparently believes that the best way to raise student achievement is to devolve authority from city hall to individual schools, allowing principals to “design their own paths to success.”

Or at least that’s what Mayor Mike told New Yorkers at his June 12 press conference, announcing that up to 350 of the city’s 1,400 schools would now officially become “Empowerment Schools,” freed from many of the bureaucratic mandates of his own Department of Education. The mayor also hinted that if his latest initiative works out, more schools would join the Empowerment Zone. After all, who can gainsay success?

It’s always good to see principals break the shackles of senseless rules and become more entrepreneurial. But the question that quickly comes to mind is: Why is Bloomberg doing this, and why now? Unfortunately, the city’s pliant education reporters never asked. The mayor could thus frame the story as just another logical step in the glorious progression of his administration’s educational reforms. In truth, the headlines should have read: mayor takes 180-degree turn on schools.

To see why, just read the text of Mayor Bloomberg’s famous Martin Luther King Day speech in 2003, where he first laid out his initiative for restructuring the city’s education system, a plan he called “Children First.” Presented to the public after six months of intense secret planning, the blueprint for the reorganized system didn’t leave much room for principals’ autonomy or innovation. It was an imperial system, with all roads leading directly to city hall.

Bloomberg noted that in the past, local schools enjoyed too much autonomy, bringing about “a baffling profusion of approaches to teaching the three Rs throughout the city.” In fact, he said, the “experience of other urban school districts shows that a standardized approach to reading, writing, and math is the best way to raise student performance across the board, in all subjects.”

Based on these purported findings, Bloomberg announced that the old discredited and decentralized system would give way to “one, unified, focused, streamlined chain of command.” So convinced was the mayor that top-down management of the schools was the way to go that he revealed that “the Chancellor’s office will dictate the curriculum and pedagogical methods.” The “dictated” teaching approach would be the purest progressive ed: whole-language instruction in reading and constructivist math.

The mayor stuck to his guns throughout the next two school years, despite rising complaints about mindless micromanagement of classroom teachers. He defended the pedagogical “dictatorship” he had granted to Chancellor Klein, saying that proof of success was in rising test scores. As recently as six months ago, the administration was still trumpeting the “historic” results on the state’s 2005 fourth-grade reading and math tests as powerful vindication of its education policies. (See my debunking of the test scores in “City’s Pupils Get More Hype than Hope,” Winter 2006.)

But if the children are testing so spectacularly well while using the progressive reading and math programs that the chancellor has imposed top-down, why would a success-minded administration suddenly want to allow school principals to abandon those programs—in other words, to go back to a “baffling profusion of approaches to teaching the three Rs throughout the city”?

It’s understandable that the city’s education reporters get frustrated in covering an education administration so skilled at spin. Still, it should not be that hard for them to put two and two together: despite the administration’s claims of historic gains in student test scores, there’s a lot of disquiet and thrashing about going on behind the Tweed Courthouse’s closed doors.

Stay tuned for more reorganization of the reorganization.