PLAINTIFFS JOIN REQUEST TO HAVE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HEAR APPEAL OF AB 1381

January 18, 2007

NEWS RELEASE
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 241-6387
FAX: (213) 241-8453
www.lausd.net

PLAINTIFFS JOIN REQUEST TO HAVE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
HEAR APPEAL OF AB 1381

LOS ANGELES – The coalition of plaintiffs, which includes parents, teachers, organizations and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), joined Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other defendants in requesting the California Supreme Court to hear the appeal of Assembly Bill 1381 and bypass the lower appeals court.

“Having the California Supreme Court make the final determination on AB 1381 will allow everyone to focus on the real and important work of improving outcomes for LAUSD students," said Marlene Canter, President of LAUSD’s Board of Education. She continued, “Our students and parents are the ones who are harmed by the uncertainty in resolving this dispute. They deserve to have final resolution of these issues.”

Kevin Reed, LAUSD’s General Counsel, noted that “while the winning party in the trial court often seeks to delay the appeal process, we are confident that the Supreme Court -- which is the court with the ultimately authority in this dispute -- will agree with the trial court and so we are urging them to take the case now, rather than to await an intermediate appellate court decision.”

AB 1381 was set to go into effect January 1, 2007 until it was ruled unconstitutional in December 2006 by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dzintra I. Janavs. Last week, Janavs denied Villaraigosa's request to implement portions of the legislation while the case goes through the appeals process.

# # #

LAUSD HIGH SCHOOLS MAKE GAINS ON EXIT EXAM: District officials say remedial camps helped boost performance over previous year.

By Paul Clinton, Staff writer | Daily Breeze

Friday, January 19, 2007 - Los Angeles Unified's class of 2007 has already surpassed its class of 2006 when it comes to passing the dreaded high school exit exam, registering a 6 percentage point gain in the number of students passing the state-mandated hurdle for a high school diploma.

By this month, 78 percent of the graduating class had passed both the English-language arts and mathematics sections of the California High School Exit Exam. A year ago, 72 percent had passed. By August, 87 percent of the class of 2006 had passed and more than half of area LAUSD high schools were above the state average.

District officials credited the improvement to students' increased familiarity with the test and a series of after-school boot camps offered a year ago to more than 26,000 students in danger of failing one or both test sections.

"Our district is continuing to do a good job of supporting the students and assisting them," trustee Mike Lansing said. "I think we're making some good progress, especially for the largest urban district in the state."

The district improved the performance across the board for each ethnic group and will seek more resources to help recent immigrants. The test creates a language barrier for students who often arrive from Mexico or Central or South America to attend high school, board members said.

Board member David Tokofsky will lobby state legislators to increase the amount of funding in the state budget for remedial classes.

In his initial budget proposal, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger included $5 million. Tokofsky said he'd like to see that number double by the release of a revised state budget in May.

"It's a brother-can-you-spare-a-dime amount of money," the retiring board member said. "For kids who don't speak English who have arrived in this country in eighth, ninth and 10th grade, there ought to be some assistance so those kids can pass that exam and that will be more than the $5 million."

A year ago, the district began offering remedial boot camps similar to a program offered by a professional testing preparation company. High school seniors who hadn't passed received 20 hours of after-school preparation.

The district spent $10.3 million. About $1.3 million came from the state; $7.7 million from federal Title I low-income lunch funds; and $1.3 million in hourly district funds.

The district spent about $390 per student, district records show.

In the first year the test was a requirement for graduation, 2,092 in LAUSD failed to pass the test. The district's 87 percent pass rate fell short of the 91.4 percent of California students who passed.

Students at San Pedro High, where 94 percent of the class of 2007 has passed, Carson High (92 percent) and Westchester High schools (also 92 percent) surpassed the typical California test-taker from 2006.

And at Wilmington's Harbor Teacher Prep Academy, with 300 students pursuing a curriculum that prepares them for careers in education, the class of 2007 scored a perfect 100 percent.

Banning High (89 percent), Narbonne High (87 percent) and Gardena High (84 percent) came in below average.

Students are given six chances to pass the exit exam. A student who doesn't pass can still attend a community college or a district adult school and continue taking the test.

The exit exam tests students' command of English-language arts at a ninth-grade level and mathematics at an eighth-grade level.

"For the small percentage who don't pass, it's not like they're out on the street," Lansing said. "There are options."

from the wonderful folks who would turn over school governance to a Jiffy Lube franchisee:

"With so much anxiety over public schools and gang violence, here’s a modest proposal: If elected, Villaraigosa’s school-board candidates will certainly vote to permit Villaraigosa to go beyond his municipal duties and take over three high schools. So in exchange, Villaraigosa should allow his newly elected school board to take over three LAPD stations in the Valley, where homicides shot up nearly 18 percent in 2006 and restaurant-takeover robberies by masked men have terrified diners."

MUNICIPAL WHIPLASH - The mayor suddenly decides gang crime, not L.A. Unified, is public enemy No. 1

by David Zahniser, LA Weekly

Ruling? What court ruling?

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa started the new year by putting plenty of miles between himself and the politically disastrous court decision handed down last month by Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs, who shit-canned his bid for power over the Los Angeles Unified School District as a violation of not just the state Constitution but also the City Charter, the legal document that says who does what at L.A. City Hall.

“Our New Year’s resolution in 2007 is to make violent street gangs public enemy No. 1,” said the mayor, standing next to Police Chief William Bratton.

The dramatic shift in emphasis was, to say the least, a bit jarring. The mayor had been doing about 90 miles an hour on education issues, spending the first 18 months of his administration talking about test scores, dropout rates, a longer school day and the need to put the mayor in charge of at least three high schools — maybe the whole district.

After such an intense push on public education, Villaraigosa’s decision to make 2007 the year of gangs left many at City Hall suffering a form of municipal whiplash. Villaraigosa rarely broached the topic of crime between June and December, lavishing time on education-oriented town-hall meetings, school-reform photo ops and last-minute lobbying trips to Sacramento, where he twisted a few arms to get lawmakers to sign off on a legally problematic L.A. Unified bill.

But then, last month’s ruling delivered a not-too-subtle message to the Villaraigosa camp: If the California Supreme Court sides with Janavs on appeal, the mayor could have precious little to show for his foray into public education. And with statistics showing a disturbing surge in gang crime — increasing by 42 percent in the San Fernando Valley alone — Villaraigosa just might have decided it was time to pay attention to some duties actually assigned to him in the City Charter.

You know, public safety and stuff.

In a 15-day period, Villaraigosa held five different press events focusing on public safety. But by then, some community activists had already begun grumbling that the mayor had lost focus on his municipal portfolio. One group of African-American leaders, alarmed by last month’s allegedly racially motivated killing of a 14-year-old Harbor Gateway girl, complained that the mayor had gone missing in action.

“He took on the LAUSD and the whole school board, trying to take over the district and make it the centerpiece of his administration,” said Najee Ali, who staged a press conference Friday in Leimert Park to chastise the mayor for his absence. “[Villaraigosa] became so engaged with that battle that he lost focus on other issues in L.A. that have been critical, and the racially motivated gang violence is the best example.”

Hours after Ali’s protest, Villaraigosa’s press shop put out a news release saying the mayor would be in Harbor Gateway the very next day to march with anxious African-American families. But that was only the latest stop in his public-safety publicity blitz. Villaraigosa showed up with Bratton on January 2 at the LAPD’s Central Division downtown to talk about crime reduction in 2006. Six days later, the mayor posed in front of 67 newly hired officers at the Police Academy, promising signing bonuses of $5,000 and $10,000 to ensure that his hiring plan does not fall apart.

Despite the flurry of safety initiatives, Villaraigosa made sure to press ahead with the other pieces of his public school campaign, publicly introducing two of his candidates in the upcoming March 6 school-board race — county administrator Yolie Flores Aguilar on the Eastside and prosecutor Tamar Galatzan in the San Fernando Valley.

The mayor is banking on his slate of school-board candidates to win board seats and then help him reach some form of legal settlement with district officials to preserve his ability to run three low-performing high schools — his major education initiative. An ideal campus for him to oversee might be Grant High School in the East Valley, where two 16-year-olds were shot the very week Galatzan and Aguilar picked up the mayor’s backing.

In a nifty piece of stage management, the mayor introduced Galatzan outside Birmingham High School, the site of a deadly shooting last year. A 16-year-old boy was killed in a gunfight right across the street in September. The gunplay occurred 40 minutes after school let out, forcing school football players to hit the ground during team practice.

With so much anxiety over public schools and gang violence, here’s a modest proposal: If elected, Villaraigosa’s school-board candidates will certainly vote to permit Villaraigosa to go beyond his municipal duties and take over three high schools. So in exchange, Villaraigosa should allow his newly elected school board to take over three LAPD stations in the Valley, where homicides shot up nearly 18 percent in 2006 and restaurant-takeover robberies by masked men have terrified diners.

Civil rights advocate Connie Rice presented a 131-page report this week on the city’s gang crisis, telling council members that they will need to work with other government agencies if they want to tackle the problem effectively. Rice’s report did a funny thing, mentioning city government and L.A. Unified over and over again, as though she thought they too should be working as a team — as equals, not with one seeking to strip the other’s power.

On the day of Rice’s presentation, Villaraigosa staffers handed schools Superintendent David L. Brewer III the mayor’s new plan for fixing L.A. Unified. Brewer received little advance notice, getting the plan just four hours before the mayor went before a televised audience to unveil it. School board member David Tokofsky fared even worse, receiving an e-mail from the mayor's office telling him that his request to attend Villaraigosa's Wednesday night education speech had been denied.

The mayor's policy paper focused mainly on non-controversial concepts: paying teachers more, making schools smaller, securing more contributions from the business community and getting more of everything – gifted programs, arts classes, foreign language lessons, etc. Once his speech ended, Villaraigosa's press shop returned to the theme for 2007, announcing that the mayor planned another trip to Harbor Gateway to talk about cracking down on – you guessed it – violent gangs.

When Villaraigosa has focused on public-safety issues, he has reaped success only dreamed of by his predecessor, former Mayor James Hahn, a man truly obsessed with public safety but politically inept. Unlike Hahn, Villaraigosa won approval of a five-year plan to hire 1,000 police officers, persuading the council to hike monthly trash fees from $11 to $28 by 2011. Where Hahn had sought a sales-tax hike, Villaraigosa deftly found a way to hit up homeowners and renters in buildings with fewer than five units.

For now, however, a majority of those extra officers are a concept for the future. Roughly half of the police hiring sought by Villaraigosa won’t occur until after his likely re-election. But then, Villaraigosa — always the master of marketing — has a tendency to speak in the present progressive tense, as in “We’re planting 1 million trees” or “We’re hiring 1,000 officers.”

As he appeared with Villaraigosa, Bratton was all too willing to call the hiring plan what it was: an incremental plan that won’t boost his department significantly for years. Standing in the LAPD’s Central Station, Bratton told his officers they shouldn’t expect reinforcements to provide much help in 2007 — a comment that somewhat undermined the mayor’s upbeat pitch.

Since his election, Villaraigosa has always been one to criticize L.A. Unified for making only incremental gains in its test scores, which rose gradually over six years under former Superintendent Roy Romer, especially in the elementary grades.

Yet Bratton too has been the master of steady, incremental progress — the type that adds up to solid double-digit gains over a four-year stretch. Villaraigosa endorsed Bratton’s leadership wholeheartedly two weeks ago, saying the chief deserves a second five-year term. Romer, on the other hand, is back in Colorado, making incremental progress on his John Deere power mower.

NCLB TURNS FIVE: It's time to send that child to school!

EDUCATORS WANT TO REVAMP NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

Ana Tintocalis | KPBS News (San Diego)

Jan 09, 2007 - President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act is up for renewal. The federal program wants to raise student achievement across the country. Many San Diego teachers and principals say the law needs to be changed. KPBS Education Reporter Ana Tintocalis has more.

Elizabeth Gillingham is the principal of De Portola Middle School. It’s located in the San Diego middle-class neighborhood of Tierra Santa.

Gillingham: We are a distinguished school by California standards and we became a model middle school for the state of California, one of 14, last year.

But in the eyes of the federal government, De Portla is failing despite the fact that student test scores improve every year. Under The No Child Left Behind Act, the school has failed to meet all the federal academic targets. Gillingham is frustrated.

Gillingham: The one measurement isn’t fair, its confusing to parents, and if they step foot on any campus, once they meet the teachers, they’re going to see people who care about kids.

President Bush proposed and a Republican Congress approved the No Child Left Behind Act five years ago. The law requires every child to be proficient in reading and math. A school can be punished if some of the students don’t satisfy the academic benchmarks. It could lose federal money. It may have to adopt a new curriculum. Or parents could ask the district to bus their child to another school.

There wasn’t supposed to be conflict between federal and state standards. The federal law was clear about that. But states like California pressured the federal government to allow them to keep a separate system.

Arun Ramanathan is director of governmental relations at the San Diego Unified School District. He says having two ways to measure a school’s success inevitably caused confusion.

Ramanathan: You have a federal system that says all of these schools are failing, and you have parents how children are in these schools, and in many cases they working real hard or doing a job. And that doesn’t work out in their heads. How could my school be identified as failure by federal government but at the same time the state accountability system says it’s doing a good job?

State educators see the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind act this year as chance to fix the program. They want the system to mirror California’s model of accountability. They say the state’s system provides a more accurate picture of how students are doing.

Currently more than 70 schools in San Diego are labeled as failures under the federal program. Ramanathan expects more schools will labeled as failures if the problem isn’t solved.

Ramanathan: We’re going to have more and more elementary schools falling in other failed category, and more and more of our high schools, until we reach a point where literally every single one of our schools is a failure.

Some states like Colorado have weakened their state standards and tests so students can make the federal targets. Jeff Simmering calls this “gaming the system” to avoid penalties -- penalties such as losing federal funding. Simmering is the legislative director of the Council of the Great City Schools. His organization believes No Child Left Behind needs an overhaul.

Simmering: This act needs more than tweaking. As they say the devil is always in the details, but the details really need to be reworked.

President Bush calls No Child Left Behind a “significant education accomplishment.” He says it forces states to look at how they teach poor and minority students.

U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings says the program is working. But she admits the program could be improved.

Alan Bersin used to be Superintendent of San Diego schools and was education secretary for Governor Schwarzenegger. Bersin still serves on the state education board. He believes No Child Left Behind can be salvaged.

Bersin: Reauthorization will bring change and much of that change I expect will be positive. The important matter is that we fix No Child Behind and not scrap it. It would be a huge step backward to simply go back to the days that everything goes where there isn’t an accountability system for holding adults responsible for the learning of children.

Look for a political battle to take place this year over the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. Teachers unions will be pushing the Democratic controlled Congress for drastic changes. Conservatives will want to keep most of the program intact. Some observers say the issue won’t be settled until after the 2008 election. Middle School Principal Elizabeth Gillingham hopes for relief. She says educators can’t continue to work under dueling standards.

Gillingham: I don’t know one school principal that doesn’t pull they’re hair out trying to figure out how to do things better, I don’t know one teacher who doesn’t look at every student in that class and try to help them succeed.

Other administrators agree. They spend a lot of time explaining two systems of accountability and which one applies when.

__________________

LANTOS SAYS NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND LAW MUST BE REFORMED

CaliforniaChronicle.com | California Political Desk

January 9, 2007 - Washington, DC - On the fifth anniversary of the well-intentioned but badly under-funded No Child Left Behind initiative, Congressman Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo-San Francisco) yesterday said the White House had nothing to strut about at its events marking the occasion.

"People across the political spectrum who care deeply about public education came together five years ago expressing hope that this program could reverse what had gone wrong with our schools," Lantos noted. "The president had even rallied Senator Ted Kennedy to his corner on this one. But rather than a panacea for quality public education, the one-two punch of the Administration's empty slogans and inadequate funding has failed to knock out the achievement gap between the disadvantaged and children of privilege. As long as that remains the case, this fight is fixed."

The independent, UC-Berkeley-based PACE center (Policy Analysis for California Education) recently reported that California middle-school students from lower-income families continue to perform just as poorly on state exams when compared with better-off students as they did 3 years ago.

"Without adequate funding, these schools, and more importantly, these students will continue to face the Sisyphean task of being required to pass 'Adequate Yearly Progress' tests they are ill prepared to take," Lantos said.

This year's national education funding falls short of projected need by $16.4 billion. Since the No Child Left Behind legislation became law, the Administration and the previously Republican-led Congress have under-funded it by a staggering $56.8 billion dollars. In California, this extreme shortfall means that 16,850 teachers will be denied the training promised in the law.

"On the Peninsula and in San Francisco, we are all too familiar with the painful decisions that need to be made when education budgets fall short," Lantos, an educator and former member of the Millbrae School Board, noted. "I am delighted that for the first time since the law's inception, Democrats will have the chance to strengthen this program, and to make meaningful changes to ensure that the original funding commitments are met."

BUSH, LAWMAKERS MEET OVER NCLB: Administration lays groundwork for renewal of education law

From eSchool News staff and wire service reports

Jan 9 - President Bush met privately with lawmakers on Jan. 8 to discuss the pending reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and acknowledged the need for changes to the federal education law, though he reportedly made no promises when the subject of more funding was addressed.

January 9, 2007—President Bush pushed for renewal of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) education law in a private meeting with congressional leaders on Jan. 8 but was noncommittal on their request for more money to help schools meet the law's requirements.

The controversial law has had an impact on many aspects of education, including education technology, and has increased pressure on school systems to spend money on computerized student information and assessment systems.

"In our discussions today, we've all agreed to work together to address some of the major concerns that some people have on this piece of legislation, without weakening the essence of the bill," Bush said following the White House meeting with Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

NCLB seeks to ensure that all children can read and do math at grade level by 2014, which has placed many new demands on schools. The law calls on schools to step up testing, boost teacher quality, and pay more attention to the achievements of minority children.

Schools that get federal aid but do not make enough progress must provide tutoring, offer public school choice to students, or initiate other reforms, such as overhauling their staffs. First Lady Laura Bush, a former teacher and school librarian, and Education Secretary Margaret Spellings attended the Jan. 8 meeting, a day the Bush administration chose to mark NCLB's fifth anniversary.

Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. who chair committees overseeing education, said they urged the president to propose funding increases for NCLB. Bush made no commitments, according to a congressional aide who was briefed on the discussions and spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.

Democrats, who won control of Congress in November, say the administration and Republican lawmakers have underfunded the law by about $50 billion, compared with what originally was called for. Republicans say it is common practice for legislation to be funded at less than the full level.

Partisan sniping over the law has been common in recent years, but the lawmakers attending the Jan. 8 meeting struck a bipartisan note and pledged to work together to get the law renewed for five more years. The united front is part of a strategy to fend off critics who want to see the law scrapped or drastically changed.

"This issue now has its detractors and those who are opposed to it. That's true in the Democratic party and the Republican party," Kennedy said.

Spellings listed a few areas of concern that came up during the Jan. 8 meeting. They included how to test special education and limited-English speaking students, a desire to give schools credit for progress even when they fall short of annual targets, and ways to get more students access to free, high-quality tutoring.

Spellings also indicated she was willing to consider providing financial incentives to states that want to align their standards with more rigorous ones in place elsewhere. The administration, and Republicans generally, have consistently resisted anything that resembles national standards dictating what students across the country should know and learn.

"I think anytime there's a carrot approach, as opposed to a stick for continuing to raise the bar, I think that will be well received," Spellings said.

NCLB has pushed some states to weaken their standards to avoid consequences that arise when schools miss annual targets.

Kennedy and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., have introduced legislation addressing the issue. The National Education Association, the largest teachers' union, has endorsed Dodd's bill calling for voluntary national standards.

In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) before the Jan. 8 meeting, Spellings said there were a few "bright-line principles" the administration would not agree to alter under a rewrite of the law. Among them is the basic requirement that all students are proficient in reading and math by 2014--a goal many observers call unrealistic.

Spellings also said the administration was open to debating how progress should be measured. Critics, including the teachers' unions, have said the current law does not give enough credit to schools that make significant strides in student achievement but fall short of reaching an annual target.

In the AP interview, Spellings declined to preview the amount Bush would seek when he releases his annual budget in February. She did indicate an interest in getting more money to teachers who work in schools that have difficulty attracting people.

Bush sought $500 million from Congress for that purpose last year and got about $100 million.

"Our best teachers, or are most experienced teachers, are in places with our least challenged learners," Spellings said.

She also reaffirmed the administration's view that the law, which focuses on early and middle grades, should be expanded in high schools.

Links: Education Department background on NCLB

National Education Association

CSM: Next round begins for No Child Left Behind

After five years, the education reform law has effected major change, but now must be voted on again by Congress. By Amanda Paulson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor | from the January 08, 2007 edition When President Bush signed the landmark No Child Left Behind Act five years ago Monday, he conducted a three-state road show, touted its bipartisan roots, and promised it would put US schools "on a new path of reform, and a new path of results." In the five years since, critics and admirers of the bill tend to agree about the reform part, but say they're still waiting for results. MEETING STANDARDS? National math scores have risen across the board since No Child Left Behind became law, but reading levels remain stagnant. Achievement levels are creeping up toward the 2014 deadline when all public school children are supposed to be "proficient" at math and reading, and the racial and economic achievement gaps have narrowed slightly in a few cases, but not at all in others. Yet even the act's harshest critics admit it has changed the conversation about education in America, and has focused attention on poor-achieving groups of students who had been overlooked. This year, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is getting particular attention: It's not just the five-year anniversary, but the year the act expires and must be voted on again by Congress - an opportunity many are hoping will be used to revise the law - either a lot or a little - to make it more effective. "I'm actually even more hopeful about this second iteration of this law than I was about the first," says Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools. "In general, I think the law has been more helpful than not. For a piece of legislation that really changed the conversation from universal access to universal proficiency, I wouldn't necessarily expect to get that paradigm shift right the first time around." A national reform In its five years, the law has affected nearly every elementary and high school in the country. Testing is now conducted every year from Grades 3 through 8, and students' performance is measured against that of the rest of their state and is broken down by race and income level. If any of those groups fails to make the "adequate yearly progress" two years in a row, the school is placed on an "in need of improvement" list. Schools on the list that receive federal funds are then subject to mounting sanctions and extra services. And that's just the most visible change. The ultimate goal is to have every child meeting standards by 2014. For now, though, the results are less clear. Scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), called the nation's report card, have climbed slowly in reading and math for some groups, but the number of students who are "proficient" is still discouraging. Just 41 percent of all white fourth graders meet the standard in reading, for instance. For both reading and math, only 13 percent of all black fourth graders are "proficient." Teachers complain of the stigma of being a failing school, and principals worry about the myriad ways they could end up on a watch list. The Department of Education emphasizes the long-term NAEP trends, noting that more progress in the reading scores of 9-year-olds was made between 1999 and 2004 than in the previous 28 years combined. But in general, even supporters say they're happier with the conversation the law has jumpstarted than with the results. "It's been more effective at capturing attention and getting the rhetorical attention than in actually prompting people to go after the hard stuff they're going to need to go after to actually close these gaps," says Kati Haycock, director of the Education Trust, which focuses on closing achievement gaps for poor and minority students. She credits NCLB with some improvement in the achievement gap, but would like to see teacher quality standards better enforced. A push to help those at the bottom One change that seems likely to get traction is a shift toward a "growth" model of assessing schools, in which schools with students who come in far below grade level get credit for helping them make big strides, even if they still fall short of proficiency - so long as, the Department of Education emphasizes, they do get students to a proficient level eventually. The department has already approved pilot programs in five states, and wants Congress to include such a model in NCLB. SOURCE: NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS/SCOTT WALLACE - STAFF Still, some critics want far more sweeping changes. A coalition called the Forum on Educational Accountability now has more than 100 groups - including the NAACP and the National Education Association - which have signed a list of 14 requested changes to the law. They include lowering the current proficiency targets, providing more assistance to failing schools, getting rid of sanctions with less record of improvement, and encouraging testing designed to measure higher thinking skills and performance throughout the year. "The goal [of NCLB] is reasonable - the structure and way it's been implemented have been a disaster," says Monty Neill, director of FairTest and chairman of the forum. He says some sanctions, such as allowing students to attend another school, aren't working, and that the testing and annual progress requirements have caused many schools to narrow their curriculum and "teach to the test" in the months preceding it. "We'd be better off putting money into the teachers, teaching them how to be better assessors, and building in methods for spot checking and getting feedback," Mr. Neill says. Slim chance for change in 2007 While the conversation is heated, the likelihood that NLCB will be reauthorized this year may be small. An informal poll of Washington insiders conducted by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Foundation found that none believed it is likely this year, and most thought it would be put off until after the 2008 presidential election. Michael Petrilli, vice president for national programs and policy of the foundation and an early supporter of NCLB, admits that by this point, he's convinced that the federal government simply can't accomplish what it wants. He'd keep the goals of NCLB, but put the federal government's effort into setting strong national standards - instead of the widely varying state standards that currently exist - and have the states and districts figure out on their own how to get students to meet those standards. "What we've learned more than anything else is that the federal government isn't well-equipped to force school districts to do things they don't want to do," Mr. Petrilli says. The Department of Education, meanwhile, asks critics to be patient. "We're in such a different place" than we were five years ago, says Kerri Briggs, acting assistant secretary for policy. "Education reform is not necessarily speedy work. It's tough stuff and requires putting in new assessments, creating data systems, rethinking curriculum, new professional development for teachers.... We have a lot of heavy lifting left to do."

THE GREAT RIVER: This is The Hour. The Hopi prayer complete.

Quoted by Maria Shiver at Governor Schwarzenegger's second inaugural, here is the great Hopi prayer/prophesy in context:

We have been telling the people that this is the Eleventh Hour.

Now you must go back and tell the people that this is The Hour.

And there are things to be considered. Where are you living? What are you doing? What are your relationships? Are you in the right relation? Where is your water? Know your garden.

It is time to speak your truth: Create your community. Be good to each other.

And do not look outside yourself for the leader: This could be a good time!

There is a river flowing now very fast. It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid. They will try to hold onto the shore. They will feel they are being torn apart and they will suffer greatly.

Know the river has its destination.

The elders say we must let go of the shore, and push off into the river, keep our eyes open, and our head above the water.

See who is in there and celebrate. At this time in history, we are to take nothing personally. Least of all ourselves. For the moment that we do, our spiritual growth and journey comes to a halt.

The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves! Banish the word struggle from your attitude and your vocabulary. All that you do now must be done in a sacred manner... and in celebration.

We are the ones we've been waiting for.

- The Great River - The Elders, Hopi Nation, Oraibi, Arizona

Quality Counts 2007: From Cradle to Career, Connecting American Education From Birth to Adulthood + Children Now: The State of the State’s Children

Quality Counts 2007: From Cradle to Career, Connecting American Education From Birth to Adulthood, a new report by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center (The publication otherwise known as Education Week), warns that children's chances for success in school varies dramatically by state. The analysis produced by Ed Week is available online at http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2007/01/04/index.html

smf: This week is a free-access-for-everyone-to-everything window @ EdWeek – go for it!

California Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell commended Education Week for "expanding the focus and context of its annual Quality Counts report," in a press release from his office, and noted that both the Edweek report and Children Now's California Report Card (reported on by the Daily News and linked-to below) both "provide a sobering look at the current state of education and other services for California's children.

O'CONNELL PRESS RELEASE

DAILY NEWS STORY

THE 2006-07 CALIFORNIA REPORT CARD: The State of the State’s Children (Complete Report)

ANTI-CHOICE MAYOR: A political machine squeezes out Tokofsky, Montañez and Fuentes, giving voters sanitized choices

by David Zahniser – LA Weekly

(emphasis re: LAUSD School Board elections in blue added by 4LAKids)

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - How does that phrase from the playground go again? Quitters never win, and winners never quit, right? It’s a good concept to keep in mind when following Los Angeles politics these days, since so many candidates are dropping out of so many political races — and almost always in a way that benefits the agenda of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

But we digress. To get our story started, it might be good to look back at the last big party at City Hall, hosted by one state Senator Alex Padilla. The upwardly mobile lawmaker from Pacoima brought to City Council chambers a marching band, cheerleaders, and scores of adoring fans who offered effusive praise to — who else? — Alex Padilla, for leaving his job as a councilman and becoming a state lawmaker.

The city’s two largest daily newspapers were appalled, grousing that the sendoff was staged in the middle of a council meeting, forcing the public to suffer through two hours of gushing tributes. But the love fest was, in fact, much craftier than it appeared.

Fans of Padilla found another reason to be in downtown Los Angeles that day: a nearby breakfast fund-raiser for Felipe Fuentes, Padilla’s chief of staff and the man Padilla chose as his heir apparent to the City Council. Contributors who attended the $500-per-ticket breakfast on Olvera Street, which generated at least $50,000 for Fuentes’ campaign, found they could conveniently walk over to the Padilla party after breakfast.

Those contributors were left holding the bag last week when Fuentes abruptly quit the council race. For weeks, Fuentes had promised his supporters he would stick to his guns and fight any move by his opponent, Assemblyman Richard Alarcón, to push him out of the race. Yet there was Fuentes, days later, calling scores of people who wrote checks for his campaign, which never materialized, telling them that he had decided to drop out — and endorse Alarcón.

You’d think former Assemblywoman Cindy Montañez, another candidate for Padilla’s open council seat, would have been thrilled. But hours later, Montañez said she too had decided to bow out and endorse Alarcón.

Fuentes and Montañez are the latest examples of the hot trend in Los Angeles politics: the tidy disappearance of candidates trying to challenge forces larger than themselves — or offer voters another choice. Think of it as the Sacramento-ization of City Hall, where deals are cut behind the scenes to clear the field for hand-picked candidates chosen by the powers that be. In L.A.’s current political climate, campaigns mysteriously evaporate. Candidates who are on the attack one day suddenly go mute the next.

And each time a candidate is anointed and the opposition removed — not just by Alarcón, but by the rising machine of Villaraigosa — the electorate misses out on a serious debate in which candidates compete over ideas for improving Los Angeles. Imagine, for example, the 2005 mayoral election without third-place candidate Bob Hertzberg, who single-handedly made struggling public schools the No. 1 issue.

For City Hall, the first troubling sign came last year, when Herb Wesson — a former state Assembly speaker — decided to run for city council. For weeks, Wesson had been expected to face Denise Fairchild, an expert on vocational training who had already hired campaign consultant Parke Skelton. On the final day to formally file to run, Villaraigosa — a Wesson ally — named Fairchild as his “special adviser” on economic development for South Los Angeles. Needless to say, she abandoned her campaign.

Skelton clearly knows the drill by now. While the once-scrappy Montañez would not come to the telephone, Skelton acknowledged in a telephone interview that Montañez, now his client, was not happy about quitting but felt that other political opportunities would come her way. Other City Hall veterans were more blunt, arguing Montañez would not have backed out unless she thought she was going to be dumped by Team Villaraigosa.

“I think clearly she got indications that she would not have the mayor, she would not have labor, and not even have what one would call a progressive wing,” said City Hall lobbyist Steve Afriat, who has worked for candidates in the San Fernando Valley.

Nathan James, spokesman for Villaraigosa’s education campaign, dismissed the notion of a mayoral machine, saying he knew of no efforts by the mayor to get candidates in or out. Each candidate is deciding independently, based on their ability to run a viable campaign, he said, adding, “I think the folks who have jumped in have done it because they want to make a difference” in L.A. Unified.

By mid-December, quitters were all over the landscape, thanks to the upcoming school board election. First to go was Luis Sanchez, talented leader of the nonprofit group Inner City Struggle, who had hoped to unseat school board member David Tokofsky, a major Villaraigosa foe. Sanchez, who fought hard to add college-prep courses to the L.A. Unified curriculum, withdrew from the race and backed Villaraigosa’s candidate, Yolie Flores Aguilar. Sanchez said he did not want to help hand a victory to Tokofsky — who is white and speaks fluent Spanish in an increasingly Latino district — by running and draining Latino votes from Aguilar. And like Fairchild, Sanchez will still have something to keep him occupied: managing Aguilar’s campaign.

Next to drop was Bea Stotzer, a Villaraigosa commissioner who had hoped to unseat school board member Jon Lauritzen, a mayoral target in the San Fernando Valley. Stotzer had been gathering signatures for her campaign, when suddenly she dropped out.

Privately, sources said Stotzer was seething after being urged to run by Team Villaraigosa, then told she wasn’t as strong a candidate as Tamar Galatzan — who is now the mayor’s expected pick. Publicly, Stotzer insists she is simply a good soldier, making the sacrifice needed to unseat Lauritzen and help the mayor get more control over L.A. Unified.

“I believe that he has an opportunity to really create some incredible reforms, and I did not want to be in the way,” she said.

The biggest shocker of all was the sudden departure of Tokofsky, a disheveled 12-year school board veteran who once had Villaraigosa’s backing but is now a sworn enemy, thanks to the fight over the mayor’s bid to control L.A. Unified. Tokofsky dropped out one day after meeting with two bigwigs from the powerful United Teachers Los Angeles teachers union that has bankrolled school board members for years.

UTLA president A.J. Duffy, who has been tight with Villaraigosa, didn’t even bother to attend the Tokofsky meeting. And union vice president Josh Pechthalt made clear there was no guarantee Tokofsky would get their nod. Even if Tokofsky did, it came with strings: Tokofsky would not get much-needed campaign funds until February, far too late in the campaign, after the mayor’s team had pounded him in mailers and other media.

Tokofsky insisted that the UTLA confab wasn’t the only factor in his decision. “Could they have been a little more encouraging? Yes. But would [more solid support] have swayed my decision? I don’t know,” he said.

Others in the union fear that its leaders are marching to the mayor’s beat on the upcoming election. High school teacher Warren Fletcher, who opposes the mayor’s takeover, said, “The [union] leadership is still working within the framework of ‘We and Antonio are a team.’ That’s their worldview. And as a result, that’s affecting their take on any number of political issues.”

So unhappy was the UTLA’s teacher-controlled legislative body over the union brass’s pale support for Tokofsky — a fighter for many teachers’ issues over the years — that they in turn blocked the union’s nomination of likely Villaraigosa candidate Richard Vladovic, a former school administrator running to replace departing board member Mike Lansing. The teachers also forced their union leaders to back Lauritzen, another Villaraigosa foe, earlier than expected.

As of now, the March 6 school board races feature just four, three or even two competing candidates, leaving voters with fewer and fewer choices.

As for the City Council race — well, a funny thing happened in the northeast San Fernando Valley. Assemblyman Richard Alarcón’s one-two punch scared off his competitors, Fuentes and Montañez, but still didn’t produce exactly the desired effect. By Friday, no fewer than nine other candidates had stepped forward to run against Alarcón, ranging from bit players at City Hall to Monica Rodriguez, one-time aide to both former mayor Richard Riordan and former councilman Mike Hernandez.

Yes, Rodriguez had heard rumors of the backroom deals designed to wipe out any real competition against Alarcón. But she declared that she’s in it to win: “There’s nothing that could have been given [to] me to get me out.”

The LAUSD news (spin)cycle

The news search engine Topix.net has this handy dandy visual aid chart that graphically shows how volatile a subject is in the news .

Here is LAUSD's:



Kinda reminiscent of a futuristic skyline from a 1930 sci-fi movie, ain't it?

Now, LAUSD is an important subject – and hasn't received adequate press coverage / scrutiny / reportage in the past – but why do I think that a news search of LAUSD without 'Villaraigosa' would produce something more akin to the Kansas landscape?

Thank you Mayor Tony. ….I think.

- smf

Mendoza v. California, Act 1.1: The Times

VILLARAIGOSA SCHOOL PLAN GOES TO COURT: Judge may rule next week on whether a mayoral takeover, set for Jan. 1, is constitutional. The losing side is expected to appeal.

By Howard Blume and Duke Helfand, LA Times Staff Writers

December 16, 2006 - The law giving Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa substantial powers over Los Angeles public schools got its first airing in court Friday, when a judge asked pointed questions about the centerpiece of the intervention efforts: the mayor's authority to assert direct control over more than three dozen schools.

The Legislature passed the Villaraigosa-backed law this fall, but the school district and other parties sued last month to permanently block the measure from taking effect Jan. 1, arguing, among other things, that it violates both the state Constitution and the Los Angeles City Charter.

Superior Court Judge Dzintra I. Janavs did not issue a ruling Friday after listening to three hours of testimony from lawyers representing Villaraigosa, the Los Angeles Unified School District and others. Janavs said she hoped to make her decision before the end of next week. The losing side is expected to appeal.

At issue is Assembly Bill 1381, which would shift some powers of the school board to the district superintendent and others to the mayor and a new Council of Mayors that Villaraigosa would dominate.

Perhaps the most crucial provision for Villaraigosa, however, allows him to choose and take control of three high schools and all the elementary and middle schools that feed into them. The schools could serve as many as 80,000 students, equivalent to the state's fourth-largest school district.

Villaraigosa's attorneys argued that the Legislature had broad powers under the California Constitution to designate authority over school systems.

But Janavs had questions about that. What, she asked, would stop the Legislature from naming anyone to run schools?

"Maybe we should get the police chief into a partnership and a council," she said. "Or maybe the district attorney. Where should the line be drawn?"

"You don't have to reach that far," responded Bradley S. Phillips, a private attorney who acted as lead trial counsel for the mayor's team.

"I think I do," said Janavs, returning repeatedly to the implication that the Legislature's discretion had no apparent limits.

Attorneys for the school system picked up on the judge's interest, arguing that the mayor's team was, in essence, arguing that a "dog catcher" could be designated to run schools, or that the Legislature could take it upon itself to assign the mayor to run the county's jails or the state of Utah.

Transferring so much power to the mayor and the Council of Mayors would eviscerate the school board's authority, violating the intent of the state Constitution and the Los Angeles city charter, said Fredric Woocher, a private attorney representing the district, parent organizations and some individual parents.

"At what point has the Legislature taken so much authority from the school board that it's no longer effectively governing?" he asked.

The judge's questions suggested that the constitutional objection becomes stronger as the school board becomes weaker. That put Villaraigosa's team in an awkward position. His lawyers repeatedly insisted that Villaraigosa's new authority was strictly limited, that the school board remained intact and relatively potent and that prevailing laws and oversight remained in force.

But their arguments ran counter to the original thrust of Villaraigosa's school reform effort: He had vowed to wrest as much authority as possible from the school board, chiefly by taking over the three groups of schools.

Last weekend, Villaraigosa announced the hiring of four educators who would help run his schools, and on Wednesday, he unveiled a $1-million private donation; another $1 million already was in hand.

He's supposed to select his first group of schools by Feb. 1 and the second by March 1. That could become a challenging time frame for the mayor as the court case plays out.

The Council of Mayors, by contrast, is less crucial to the mayor's immediate plans because its primary duty is to ratify the hiring of a superintendent. On this front, the school board circumvented Villaraigosa by signing retired Vice Adm. David L. Brewer to a four-year contract last month, before the new law could take effect.

Brewer could yet be the unlikely beneficiary of Villaraigosa's efforts. The law transfers some of the school board's powers to him, and this transfer is subject to fewer constitutional challenges.

The judge raised the possibility that she would throw out some parts of the new law, but she didn't specify which. She queried the parties about whether the rest could function on their own.

The mayor's team argued that they could. An attorney for the school district said the answer depended on what survived.

The notion that part — but not all — of the new law could persist might displease some of the mayor's allies who worry that a piecemeal bill could undermine school reform efforts.

Last fall, former Mayor Richard Riordan, philanthropist Eli Broad, former Gov. Pete Wilson and some legislators specifically asked the law's backers to remove a "severability clause," and the mayor's team complied. This action suggested that if part of the bill failed, it would all be nullified. At least that's how proponents of the change understood it.

The mayor's attorneys said in court papers that severability is spelled out in the education code.

After their appearance in court, school district attorneys seemed distinctly hopeful.

"The judge has obviously taken the time to deal with these issues, read the briefs thoroughly and showed a command of the case law," said Kevin Reed, district general counsel. "I think that we're right, and I'm cautiously optimistic."

Villaraigosa predicted the law would be upheld and would "allow us all to move past the lawsuit and begin implementing the reforms."

The mayor's top legal advisor acknowledged that his side had to field numerous pointed questions but insisted that the judge's inquiries gave no reliable indication of a ruling against the law.

"I wouldn't take so much from who gets asked more questions," said Thomas Saenz, the mayor's legal counsel, who attended the hearing but did not argue the case.

"Sometimes that's just clarifying her own thinking."

Whatever survives of the new law would be a plus, he said.

"Every piece of the package," Saenz said, "was important."

Mendoza v. California, Act 1.1: The Daily Breeze

Lawyer: Mayor's LAUSD role violates City Charter
The Daily Breeze | from news service December 16, 2006 - A law giving the mayor partial control of the Los Angeles Unified School District violates the City Charter and could lead to mayoral conflicts in decisions involving the city and the schools, an attorney for the district argued Friday. "One is going to get short-changed," attorney Fredric D. Woocher said during the nonjury trial of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the legislation. The suit, filed Oct. 10 in Los Angeles Superior Court by a coalition of district parents, students, administrators and the League of Women Voters, maintains that the legislation is unconstitutional and infringes on the rights of voters. But Assistant City Attorney Valerie L. Flores said the city has a vested interest in the education of its young people so they can become productive members of society. The impact on a city's economy can be directly tied to school graduation rates, Flores said. The plaintiffs want Judge Dzintra Janavs to overturn Assembly Bill 1381, which was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in September and gave Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa some authority over the district, though far less than he originally wanted. After several hours of arguments by attorneys, Janavs took the matter under submission and said she hoped to have a decision by Thursday. LAUSD General Counsel Kevin S. Reed told Janavs that AB 1381 was passed despite the legislative counsel's conclusion that it was unconstitutional. After the hearing, Reed told reporters he was pleased by the thorough nature of the judge's questions. "What we wanted was our day in court, and we absolutely got our day in court," Reed said. "I think she wanted to hear all the issues." LAUSD board member David Tokofsky, an opponent of the legislation, said after the hearing that he was struck by the frequent mention by the mayor's attorneys about their concern for the voters -- even though AB 1381 was never put on the ballot. Tokofsky got into a brief verbal spat in the hallway outside the courtroom with Thomas Saenz, counsel to the mayor, over the way AB 1381 was handled in the Legislature

"I understand you're upset, David," Saenz said.

"I am upset," Tokofsky replied. "I have children in the district, Tom. Do you have children in the district?"

Tokofsky has announced he will not run for a fourth term.

During the hearing, Woocher said that if the Legislature has an interest in schools that "requires this intrusion," the legislation should be applied statewide.

State Deputy Attorney General Susan K. Leach, representing Schwarzenegger and state Controller Steve Westly, said AB 1381 is "not a takeover of the LAUSD, but is a statute aimed specifically at education reform in the LAUSD."

Villaraigosa, the state, Schwarzenegger, Westly and Los Angeles County schools Superintendent Darline Robles -- who oversees the county office of education, not the LAUSD -- are all defendants in the case, which mayoral aide Matt Szabo has called a "frivolous lawsuit and a desperate attempt to preserve the failed status quo."

AB 1381 shifts most of the decision-making authority from the seven-member LAUSD board to the district superintendent; creates a Council of Mayors, giving a significant role to Los Angeles' mayor in managing the nation's second-largest school district; and gives individual schools greater control over their budgets and curriculum during a six-year trial period.

The mayor also gets direct control over the district's three lowest-performing high schools and their feeder campuses.

Before the bill was signed, the school board voted 6-1 to challenge AB 1381's legality.

Mendoza v. California, Act 1.1: The Daily News

LAUSD PLAN GOES TO COURT: Legality of mayor's plan to take over part of school district is questioned.

By Naush Boghossian, Staff writer, Los Angeles Newspaper Group (Daily News)

Dec. 16, 2006 - Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's hard-fought effort to reform the Los Angeles Unified School District culminated Friday in a three-hour courtroom showdown, with attorneys debating the legality of the law that will determine who controls the nation's second-largest school district.

Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs said she hoped to rule by Thursday on the legal challenge to Assembly Bill 1381, which gives Villaraigosa responsibility for three school "clusters" and a 28-member council of mayors authority over the rest. It also grants local educators greater authority in operating their own campuses.

Even as lawyers debated the validity of the complex law, Janavs questioned whether some of its provisions should be overturned.

"I do want to hear both sides ... in case I decide at least part of this is unconstitutional," she said. "It's very clear this was a compromise measure. I don't know how you can avoid that.

"How do I figure out which was quid pro quo for what?"

Thomas Saenz, the mayor's chief counsel, said that invalidating Villaraigosa's ability to take over the low-performing schools would gut the mayor's hard-fought reform effort.

"This is intended as a package designed to increase accountability and community involvement in education and thereby improve the schools and those are significant parts of the package," he said. "But that said, every piece of the package is important and we think that every piece of the package would lead to some incremental improvement."

LAUSD's chief attorney, Kevin S. Reed, argued that AB1371 was passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor even though the state's legislative counsel had concluded the bill was unconstitutional.

After the hearing, Reed told reporters he was pleased by the thorough nature of Janavs' questions.

"What we wanted was our day in court and we absolutely got our day in court," Reed said. "I think she wanted to hear all the issues."

Fred Woocher, Reed's co-counsel, said Janavs was obviously aware that political compromises had been made to get the bill approved.

"I think she was very astute in recognizing how much of a political compromise the passage of this bill was," he said. "In the context in which this bill was crafted and all the dealmaking that went on, it really is difficult to believe if any piece of it were taken away that it would have gotten sufficient votes to pass."

Villaraigosa released a statement saying he believed his reform bill will remain intact.

"I believe the courts will rule AB1381 to be constitutional, which will allow us all to move past the lawsuit and begin implementing the reforms," he said.

The lawsuit was filed in October by a LAUSD-led coalition which claimed AB1381 violates the state Constitution, which mandates a separation between a city governments and its education system.

The suit also claims the bill violates the Los Angeles City Charter, which sets forth the duties of the mayor, but does not grant him authority over public schools.

Additionally, the suit alleges the bill disenfranchises voters who are served by Los Angeles Unified but don't live in Los Angeles.

School board member David Tokofsky sat through most of the arguments, which he said offered more debate about the law than during the legislative process.

He expressed concern about a ruling that would invalidate only portions of the law.

"On the surface it seems to make a convoluted law simpler, but it will make the administration of schools less understandable and clear to moms and dads trying to understand the system.

"Depending on which way they did it, it would be a significant addition to the breakup discussion."

Mendoza v. California, Act 1.1: The Associated Press

JUDGE SET TO RULE ON SCHOOLS TAKEOVER

The Associated Press

Dec. 16, 2006 - LOS ANGELES — A state law that gave Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa partial control of the nation's second-largest school district is unconstitutional, opponents argued in the first court hearing on the controversial reform measure.

Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs heard three hours of testimony Friday in a lawsuit seeing to permanently block the measure before it takes effect on Jan. 1. The judge took the case under submission and said she expected to issue a ruling next week.

Villaraigosa predicted the law would be upheld and would "allow us all to move past the lawsuit and begin implementing the reforms."

The Los Angeles Unified School District has about 727,000 students, some 1,130 schools in more than two dozen cities, and 78,000 employees. It is plagued with a dismal graduation rate and an astronomical dropout rate.

Assembly Bill 1381, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this fall, would shift some powers of the seven-member school board to the mayor, the district superintendent and a new council that includes more than two dozen local mayors. It also grants Villaraigosa direct control over more than three underperforming dozen schools serving as many as 80,000 students.

In court, an attorney representing the school district and other opponents argued that the law takes too much power away from the elected school board and violates the state Constitution and the city charter.

"At what point has the Legislature taken so much authority from the school board that it's no longer effectively governing?" Fredric Woocher asked.

Villaraigosa's attorneys argued that state lawmakers have broad control over school districts.

The judge questioned that argument and asked what would stop the state from putting anyone in charge of schools.

"Maybe we should get the police chief into a partnership and a council," she said.

Assistant City Attorney Valerie L. Flores argued that the law creates only a "minor intrusion" into the education system.

It "introduces the concept the LAUSD needs to coordinate with other officials to take a whole regional approach to educating students," Flores said.

The law is "not a takeover of the LAUSD, but is a statute aimed specifically at education reform in the LAUSD," argued state Deputy Attorney General Susan K. Leach, representing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Controller Steve Westly.

Mendoza v. California, Act 1 | School Me Reports live!

Live-blogging the Takeover Lawsuit

News Alert: Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs says she wants to get a decision on the case out by next Thursday at the latest.

+++

The fate of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's schools takeover legislation hangs in the air today as the mayor's legal eagles take on the LAUSD's law team at Los Angeles Superior Court. Armed with a dying Blackberry, School Me's (The LA Times Education Blog) Bob Sipchen reports from the scene:

1:45 PM: Court's back in session. Can Jiffy Lube run a public school? That's the question before Judge Dzintra Janavs. Really. At least one of them. A hypothetical, floated by the LAUSD team to challenge the legislature's decision to change who rules the local schools. School Me's in the courtroom and will let you know what happens...

1:54 PM: The judge has just raised the issue of "severability" -- whether part of the bill can and should survive if other parts are killed --saying that she wants to understand it in case she finds at least part of the bill unconstitutional.

2:01 PM: The district's side is basically agin' the judge letting any aspect of the law stand -- though they admit that certain other parts could conceivably function if the judge doesn't give the mayor his demonstration schools. The mayor's side argues that the spirit of the law is to encourage reform, so it's all good. If one part gets shot down, let the rest reform on.

"It's very clear that this is compromise measure," says Judge Janavs. To which the mayor's side replies that all legislation involves compromise. The judge seems interested in which pieces of the bill were "quid pro quo."

The peanut gallery, filled with named plaintiffs and the usual suspects including reporters and a handful of education obsessives, get several good laughs out of the judge's quips, then, noting that the matter is a complicated one...

2:02 PM: The judge says she wants to get a decision out by next Thursday at the latest.

2:07 PM: and then: "The matter is submitted and the court is in recess."

2:45 PM: Back at the Times, dazed by how quickly the afternoon session ended, School Me reflects on an amusing post-hearing moment: Outside, in the 8th floor Superior Court hallway, outgoing school board member David Tokofsky slipped into the scrum of reporters -- NBC'S Laurel Erickson, The Daily News' Naush Boghossian, the Times' Duke Helfand, etc. -- and began peppering the mayor's counsel, Thomas Saenz, with his own questions. Saenz, in an apparent reference to Tokofsky's Op-Ed in today's Times, says something to the effect of: What, you think you're a reporter now? The two dry-witted wise guys' jocular sparring begins to get heated, and Saenz finally dismisses his interlocutor with: "I know you're upset, David. Everyone knows you're upset."

Asked by Helfand if, should the judge decide against his case, the mayor's side will appeal, Saenz responded: "Absolutely."