RESOLUTIONS BY BOARD MEMBERS

U P D A T E

In L.A. UNIFIED OKS REFORM PACKAGE: (LAT July 11, 2007), Howard Blume, LA Times Staff writer reports:

"(School Board President) Garcia drove not only the meeting but also the blitzkrieg of reform motions. In that endeavor she had assistance from the mayor's office — help that became obvious when mid-level district officials discovered that Villaraigosa's office was listed as the author on the computerized draft files of her motions.

"The mayor's staff offered input and "help in terms of research and support and feedback," Garcia said.

"A spokesman for Villaraigosa characterized the effort similarly. "These documents are a result of a collaborative effort led by school board President Garcia," Matt Szabo said. "At her request, the office provided the board president with drafts she used as a launching point."

The mayor had sought substantial control over L.A. Unified through legislation that was thrown out by the courts. He succeeded, however, in efforts to raise millions that helped elect board members allied to him."

more detail/another viewpoint/same issue: See LA Weekly "Antonio's Kitchen Cabinet"

▲smf's 2¢: The mayors office's bully-pulpit and political-checkbook influence on the school board is one thing, the electronic DNA left on the reform agenda proposals is quite another – showing disrespect if not contempt for the court's opinions in the case that overturned AB1381 and held that the mayor and the City of LA could have no role in the governance of LAUSD. The mayor had an opportunity to challenge those opinions in the Supreme Court and chose not to — that was his opportunity to question the courts' opinions.

If city employees working on city time on city computers spending the city taxpayer's money worked on school district governance issues that would certainly have the appearance of a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the Villaraigosa v. LAUSD, et al. decision.

LAUSD Board of Education Annual Meeting - Order of Business, July 3, 2007

1. DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY: TRANSFORMATION METRICS

WHEREAS, The Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles is ultimately responsible for the Los Angeles Unified School District’s success and for improving student achievement;

WHEREAS, In order for the Board to set effective policy that will lead to improved student achievement and District success, the Board must have accurate and meaningful data related to student achievement, student retention, student safety, employee satisfaction, financial results and other areas related to overall District performance;

WHEREAS, The Board should have a defined set of key performance indicators of District success that it analyzes regularly to determine whether or not the District is performing well and improving at a fast enough rate;

WHEREAS, The Board, in collaboration with the Superintendent, should set annual goals that the District expects to meet for each key performance indicators;

WHEREAS, The Board must hold the Superintendent accountable for the performance of the District;

WHEREAS, Student and District performance data should be made available to the public in an easy to read format so that the public can interpret how well the District is doing on key performance indicators and can hold the District accountable for results;

WHEREAS, The current Superintendent has articulated that using data to drive decisions is one of his core principles for transforming the District; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles commits to using student and District performance data in order to drive policy decisions;

RESOLVED FURTHER, The Board directs the Superintendent to deliver a comprehensive report within 30 days which defines the key metrics for measuring District performance that the District is currently using;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board directs the Superintendent to deliver within 60 days a Key Performance Indicator Report which identifies the most critical metrics that the Board will use to measure the District’s performance monthly and annually going forward;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Key Performance Indicator Report include at a minimum:

• Graduation rates

• College acceptance, placement, and eligibility rates (by 2-year and 4-year colleges)

• API scores

• California Standardized Test results

• CAHSEE results

• CELDT scores

• ELL Redesignation rates

• Percentage of students taking/passing A-G courses

• Student retention rates (including reasons student left school)

• Drop-out rates (including reasons student left school)

• Student and teacher attendance rates

• Number of safety incidents reported by campus

• Number of student disciplinary actions taken (suspensions, expulsions, etc.)

• Parent satisfaction (based on evaluations)

• Employee satisfaction

• Employee staffing/vacancy rates

• Financial performance (actual financial expenditures vs. allocated dollars)

RESOLVED FURTHER, That Key Performance Indicator Report include an executive summary, a detailed report, and a summary report that is designed for use by parents and the community at large;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Key Performance Indicator Report breakdown key performance indicators by subgroup (demographics, free & reduced lunch, ELL, etc.), include both raw scores and growth from prior year, and include comparisons with other comparable districts on certain performance indicators;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Superintendent set annual, District wide goals for each Key Performance Indicator and report back to the Board after each school year on progress made against these goals;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board review progress with the Superintendent against certain key performance indicators at the first Board meeting of the month; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That the Board use the District’s performance on key performance indicators to drive policy decisions and hold the Superintendent and the District as a whole accountable for results.

2. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PAYROLL ISSUES AND BETTER TOOLS FOR SCHOOLS IMPLEMENTATION

WHEREAS, The Los Angeles Unified School District is responsible for paying its employees on time and accurately;

WHEREAS, If the District does not pay its employees accurately, it is critical that District respond quickly, effectively, and with courtesy to employees’ complaints about inaccurate compensation and fix the problems;

WHEREAS, If employees are consistently paid inaccurately and their complaints about inaccurate pay are not responded quickly and effectively, then they will likely have lower morale at work and this can directly impact student achievement;

WHEREAS, The District implemented a new Business Tools for Schools (BTS) payroll system and issued its first paychecks for certificated employees on February 5, 2007;

WHEREAS, Since February 5, 2007, tens of thousands of employees have received inaccurate pay;

WHEREAS, Since February 2007, employees throughout the District have complained regularly that their complaints about inaccurate pay have not been responded to effectively and employees have been consistently inconvenienced as they have been forced to travel downtown and wait in long lines to receive checks;

WHEREAS, The leadership of the United Teachers Los Angeles and the other unions representing District employees have communicated very clearly that it is a top priority for their members to get the BTS system fixed and get every employee in the District paid accurately and on time;

WHEREAS, As recently as June 5, four month after paychecks were first issued by the BTS system, approximately 32,000 District employees were incorrectly paid; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Board of Education of The City of Los Angeles directs the Superintendent to provide a detailed report on the BTS Implementation to the Board by July 15, 2007;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the detailed report on the BTS Implementation will include an analysis of the BTS implementation to date, which includes at a minimum:

• The total number of employees that have received inaccurate pay since the BTS system was implemented including a percentage breakout by position;

• The total number of instances in which employees received inaccurate pay since the BTS system was implemented;

• Detailed descriptions from both the District staff and Deloitte and Touche of all of the issues that have been identified that contributed to the large numbers of inaccurate paychecks. These issues should be ranked in order from the issue that had the greatest negative impact to the issue with the least negative impact. Additionally, issues should be identified as being related to the software itself, being related to the Deloitte & Touche’s implementation of the software or being related directly to the District;

• A breakout of the total amount of money that has been overpaid to employees and not collected as well as a breakout of the total amount of money that is currently due to all employees;

• A description of any negative impact the BTS implementation has had on the STRS and PERS accounts of employees;

• A detailed description of the current processes available to District employees to remedy inaccuracies in their paychecks including the average time in number of days it takes an employee to receive an accurate remedy to a pay issue;

• A comparison of the current BTS system with the previous system in terms of effectiveness and productivity;

• A summary of the lessons learned from over the last four months from the BTS implementation;

• Description of the departments and individuals within the District most responsible for the problems with BTS and how those departments and individuals are being held accountable and

• Explanation of how Deloitte & Touche is being held accountable for their role in the problems related to BTS;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the detailed report on the BTS Implementation include a plan for solving all outstanding issues related to the BTS implementation, including at a minimum:

• The date that the District commits to hit for resolving all outstanding issues related to the BTS implementation as well as a detailed week by week and/or month by month plan for what issues will get resolved and when;

• The total estimated additional cost required to fix all of the outstanding issues related to the BTS implementation;

• A detailed plan of how to, most quickly and effectively, resolve employees’ complaints related to pay before all of the issues with BTS system are fixed;

• An analysis for whether or not the District could re-implement the old payroll system and stop the implementation of the new BTS system. This analysis should include a description of the pros and cons of reverting to the previous payroll system and a breakout of what it would cost to revert to the old payroll system;

• An assessment of the possibility of outsourcing some or all of the District’s payroll to a third party payroll provider for a temporary period of time while the district fixes the existing system;

• A description of the accountability that Deloitte & Touche has built into its contract for moving forward to ensure that the estimated additional cost required to fix all outstanding issues related to BTS does not increase;

• A description of the accountability for District employees responsible for resolving all outstanding issues related to the BTS implementation;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That by July 15, all employees will receive a reconciliation statement from the District that shows the amounts each employee has been paid since the BTS system was implemented and the amounts each employee is owed. This should include reconciliation for contributions made to STRS and PERS;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That additional funds, which were not originally budgeted, but must be expended to complete the successful BTS implementation should not come from educational programs that affect classroom teachers and students. These funds should come from additional revenue, cuts in the bureaucracy, or other areas that do not directly impact the classroom;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That until all outstanding issues related to the BTS implementation are resolved, the District will operate emergency pay centers in every local district and these emergency pay centers will either have the capacity to issue reconciliation checks directly or will receive checks in a timely manner from the central office and distribute those checks directly at the emergency pay center;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the District set up a process whereby employees who have documented evidence of financial hardship due to the District’s payroll errors can present their evidence to a designated person at the District and can be made whole by the District if the designated person determines that financial hardship did in fact occur as a result of the BTS implementation; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That the District hire an independent third party entity to monitor and audit the implementation of the BTS system moving forward.

3. “DIPLOMAS FOR ALL”: INCREASING THE NUMBER OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

WHEREAS, The Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles is responsible for ensuring that children educated in the Los Angeles Unified School District have the opportunity to receive a quality education that earns them a meaningful, A-G high school diploma, and are college prepared and career ready;

WHEREAS, The Board believes that it is unacceptable that only 28,421 students graduated from the 12th grade in 2006 in spite of the fact that over 68,802 students started in the 9th grade four years earlier;

WHEREAS, A “Diplomas for All” policy requires that the District develop and implement a comprehensive strategy that includes a strong instructional program, leadership training, and development;

WHEREAS, In the competitive environment of the 21st Century it is essential for individuals in Los Angeles to have a high school diploma in order to obtain a living wage;

WHEREAS, The Board believes that the District has the potential to become the best school district in the nation and a school system that successfully educates children who attend its schools; now,

therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles be committed to a goal whereby within eight years all students that start school in Los Angeles Unified School District and do not move out of the District or go to a private school, will receive an excellent education and graduate from high school college prepared and career ready;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board directs the Superintendent to deliver a comprehensive eightyear strategic plan within the next 120 days which includes principal strategies needed for successful implementation (i.e. professional development, re-classification of English Learners,

etc.), benchmarks for measuring progress with annual targets to significantly increase graduation rates, and a student tracking mechanism that would allow the District to accurately measure its progress against the plan. This comprehensive, long-term, strategic plan should include extensive detail for the reforms and strategies that the District will implement over the next two years;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board directs the Superintendent to report to the Board semi-annually to discuss the progress the District is making towards the graduation of all students by 2015. The report shall include an analysis of the reasons for why the District has or has NOT met its graduation targets in the prior year as well as a detailed description of any new strategies the Superintendent will use in the subsequent year in order to increase the number of graduates. The report must also show how the budget for the subsequent year will be aligned with the District’s key priorities.

4. ENGLISH LEARNERS: HOPE ON THE HORIZON

WHEREAS, The Los Angeles Unified School District has undertaken the responsibility to provide every student with a high quality education and a coherent and rigorous curriculum leading to high school graduation college prepared and career ready;

WHEREAS, The District has framed the vision of providing every student with a stellar, state of the art pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade education within a safe and caring environment that fully engages parents and the community;

WHEREAS, The District has expressed its commitment to close the achievement gap among the lowest performing students in the District; and, in accordance with the resolution unanimously approved in 2002, schools, Local District staff, and central office personnel were encouraged to “fully embrace and implement the…initiative in its entirety, holding schools as well as local and central offices accountable for the academic success of English Learners.”

WHEREAS, The District provides services to approximately 290,000 English Learners in some 840 schools and education centers through Structured English Immersion programs, Basic Bilingual programs, dual language programs, newcomer programs, and Cultural Education;

WHEREAS, The District has failed to provide a District-wide vision, focus, and set of expectations to reverse the alarming drop out rates, the persistent gap in achievement; and the inequitable access to high quality instructional programs for English Learners;

WHEREAS, The District has not yet developed a cohesive approach to curricular, instructional or professional development needs that will create a sound foundation for success of English Learners;

WHEREAS, The Elementary Division’s Language Acquisition Branch and secondary staff in the content areas have failed to collaborate across grade configurations to create a cohesive pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade curriculum;

WHEREAS, The data demonstrates that current standards-based strategies, curriculum, and instruction are not uniformly implemented and contribute to a culture of lowered expectations that affect English language development progress and student achievement levels of English Learners and immigrant students;

WHEREAS, 84% of English Learners in the elementary grades receive instruction in the Structured English Immersion Program;

WHEREAS, 78% of English Learners in the secondary grade receive instruction totally in English;

WHEREAS, Approximately 49% of English Learners who received all their elementary instruction in the District entered middle school without reclassifying;

WHEREAS, Approximately 37% of English Learners who received all their K-8 instruction in the District matriculated from middle school into high school without reclassifying;

WHEREAS, The percentage of English Learners in the elementary grades who score Proficient or Above in the CST – English Language Arts is 13%;

WHEREAS, The percentage of English Learners in the elementary grades who score Proficient or Above in the CST – Mathematics is 32%;

WHEREAS, The percentage of English Learners in the secondary grades who score Proficient or Above in the CST – English Language Arts is 3%;

WHEREAS, The percentage of English Learners in the secondary grades who score Proficient or Above in the CST – Mathematics is 4%; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles directs the Superintendent to fully embrace and implement the Title III initiative in its entirety, holding schools as well as local and central offices accountable for the academic success of English Learners;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board directs the Superintendent to design a comprehensive English Language Development support system that meets the needs of English Learners in elementary, middle, and high schools;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board directs the Superintendent to develop a comprehensive Structured English Immersion program for Early Education and Full-day Kindergarten;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Superintendent directs the Office of Instruction to develop a 1-2 year program to transition recently reclassified English Learner students to a rigorous, content-based curriculum;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Superintendent institutes an after-school ELD enrichment program and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) preparation program for middle and high school students;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Superintendent directs the newly established Deputy Superintendent for Professional Development, Learning and Leadership to develop a program of on-going professional development for teachers assigned to Structured English Immersion programs, Basic Bilingual programs, and Dual Language Programs;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Superintendent convenes the appropriate administrative staff to rethink the current policies, practices, and procedures for the expansion of District-wide alternative bilingual programs, including Basic Bilingual and Dual Language Programs;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Superintendent directs staff to design an information sharing mechanism that includes an easily accessible, parent friendly tracking report to indicate a student’s course selection, current ELD level, and reclassification status; and be it finally RESOLVED, That the Superintendent reports back to the Board in six months on the methods of professional and staff development, parent outreach, and evaluation that have been employed for implementation by the Office and Instruction and local districts.

5. TEACH LAUSD CAMPAIGN

WHEREAS, In order for the Los Angeles Unified School District to become the best school district in the country and an educational system in which all students are able to receive a quality high school diploma, the District must effectively involve parents in the educational experiences of the students it serves;

WHEREAS, For purposes of this resolution, the definition of parents includes legal guardians;

WHEREAS, The Board of Education for the City of Los Angeles believes that effectively involving parents includes the following activities: welcoming parents into schools regularly; educating parents on what their children are experiencing at school; regularly communicating with parents through multiple means of communication; offering parents a wide variety of ways to get involved in their children’s educational experiences at school, after school or on weekends;

providing services to parents when possible; and quickly and respectably responding to parents’ requests.

WHEREAS, Parents play a critical role in public schools and are key factors in producing measurable gains in student academic success, closing the achievement gap, reducing drop-out rates, increasing graduation rates, promoting positive adolescent behavior, and furthering student’s emotional development;

WHEREAS, The District, in April 2006, developed a Title I Parent Involvement Policy to better engage parents and more explicitly define parental roles and responsibilities in Title I schools;

WHEREAS, The Superintendent stated in his Annual State of the Schools speech in 2007 that empowering and engaging parents was one of his core principles for reforming the District;

WHEREAS, The Superintendent has proposed to create the Office of Parent and Civic Engagement (OCE), which will engage parents in the community and be responsible for all parent involvement programs and activities to better incorporate parents into schools;

WHEREAS, The Board believes that it is the responsibility of all employees in the District to value parents and effectively involve parents in schools and the District as a whole; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles is committed to effectively involving parents in schools and in the Los Angeles Unified School District as a whole;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That every school in the District should employ the equivalent of at least one person with the direct responsibility for engaging parents in their respective school; \\

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board strongly supports the Superintendent’s commitment to the empowerment and engagement of parents as a guiding principle for transforming the District;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board directs the Superintendent to deliver within 90 days a report on the effectiveness of the implementation of the Title I Parent Involvement Policy (passed in April 2006) during the 2006-2007 school year. This report should include at a minimum the following:

• The total number of schools that implemented the policy,

• The actual increase in number of parents involved in their children’s schools as a result of the effective implementation of the policy,

• Any data related to whether or not parent satisfaction with schools increased as a result of the implementation of this policy,

• An assessment from the Superintendent’s staff regarding the effectiveness of the policy,

• A summary of the both the best practices and the challenges that resulted from the implementation of this policy;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board directs the Superintendent to deliver within 120 days a detailed plan that outlines how the Office of Parent and Civic Engagement will lead to an improvement in parent engagement and empowerment in the District. This plan should include at a minimum the following:

• A description of goals of the Office of Parent and Civic Engagement and a plan for how

those goals will be carried out,

• An outline of the process and training that will be used by the district to train administrators, classified staff, and teachers to better engage parents at schools sites,

• An overview of the different parent engagement programs that the Office of Parent and Civic Engagement will be recommending to schools,

• A description of how the district will hold itself accountable for results for parent engagement including what specific metrics the district will track,

• A summary of how the work of the Office of Parent and Civic Engagement will be an improvement over the work done to implement the 2006 Parent Involvement Policy,

• A budget for the Office of Parent and Civic Engagement.

6. LEADERS OF LEADERS PROGRAM

WHEREAS, In order for The Los Angeles Unified District to become a district where all students graduate from high school with meaningful high school diplomas it must have quality principals leading every school;

WHEREAS, Principals, teachers, and counselors as collaborative leaders are essential to the success of the schools they lead and are the instructional leaders responsible for inspiring teachers, classified staff, students, parents and the community;

WHEREAS, In order to effectively lead schools, the District must invest both in developing aspiring principals from its teacher, counselor, coach, and assistant principal ranks and in developing its existing principals to ensure that they are experts in instructional leadership and school management;

WHEREAS, Creating a district in which all employees are lifelong learners is one of the five guiding principles that the Superintendent has stated will be the foundation for transforming the District; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles directs the Superintendent to create a new, comprehensive Principal Leadership Program focused on developing outstanding

new principals and on providing principals with additional support in their first two years;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the primary purpose of the Principal Leadership Program will be to develop principals who will be strong instructional leaders, effective managers, parent and community centered and focused intensely on student achievement;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Principal Leadership Program be developed during the 2007-2008 school year and launched before the start of the 2008-2009 school year; and be it finally

RESOLVED, That the Board directs the Superintendent to deliver, within 150 days, a detailed plan for the Principal Leadership Program that will be launched before the start of the 2008-2009 school year. This plan should include at a minimum:

• Detailed description of the Principals Leadership Program for both aspiring principals as well as for first and second year principals,

• Target number of aspiring principals and first and second year principals that will be developed annually through the Principal Leadership Program,

• Projected cost of the Principal Leadership Program,

• Potential sources of philanthropy to fund the Principal Leadership Program,

• Partners that will be used to help develop the Principal Leadership Program,

• Partners and/or District staff that will be used to help in the delivery of the Principal Leadership Program,

• Metrics for measuring the success of the Principal Leadership Program,

• Recommendation of changes to make to the principal recruitment and hiring processes,

• Description of the relationship between the Principal Leadership Program and university credentialing programs.

7. SMALLER COMMUNITY SCHOOLS AND MORE K-8 SCHOOLS

WHEREAS, In 2006, the California Standardized Testing (CST) indicated that 72% and 71% of 7th grade students in the Los Angeles Unified School District were not performing at grade level in English and Math, respectively. The CST further indicated that 77% and 54% of 10th grade students in the District are not performing at grade level in English and Math, respectively;

WHEREAS, 90% of the District schools are above the State average, with the average size of middle schools being 1,960 with some middle schools serving over 3,100 students, and the average size of District high schools is 2,770 with some high schools serving as many as 4,700 students;

WHEREAS, Research has shown that making schools smaller is one strategy that school districts have taken to help increase student achievement, improve attendance rates, and lower dropout rates;

WHEREAS, The Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles passed a resolution in July of 2004,

stating its support of smaller learning environments through the development of Small Learning Communities (SLC’s) in schools and the Superintendent has expressed a desire to develop Small Learning Communities at many of the District’s low performing middle schools;

WHEREAS, Another strategy school districts have used for making middle schools smaller (in addition to Small Learning Communities) is to transform elementary schools into K-8 schools;

WHEREAS, Smaller K-8 schools can further facilitate stability for young adolescents by eliminating the transition from elementary to middle school and grant older students the opportunity to serve as mentors/tutors to younger students;

WHEREAS, Small schools, including K-8 schools, assist teachers in identifying and preventing students who may be failing or on the verge of dropping out, allow teachers to better understand their students’ emotions and academic needs, improve instructional sharing among the faculty, and strengthen relationships among teachers;

WHEREAS, Smaller schools, including K-8 schools, enable students to develop more personal relationships with administrators and teachers, and are generally safer;

WHEREAS, Small schools, including K-8 schools, increase the likelihood that parents will be engaged in their child’s school and form parent communities that will be actively involved in their child’s education;

WHEREAS, Parents in communities throughout the District have asked for more small schools and for their elementary and middle schools to be transformed into K-8 schools where possible;

WHEREAS, New school facilities, including their libraries, gymnasiums, athletic fields and swimming pools of these new facilities, more accessible to communities surrounding these schools which will increase the likelihood that communities are more engaged in their schools and will help to uplift communities surrounding new schools;

WHEREAS, The District is building an additional 77 new schools over the next 6 years that have not yet been designed and is also assessing how to redesign existing schools to make those schools more conducive to Small Learning Communities; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles directs that all of the remaining new schools where, as of the date this resolution is passed, a preferred site has yet to be approved by the Board will be built as small schools that serve ideally no more than 500 students but certainly no more than 1,000 students, unless otherwise approved by the Board;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board of Education be committed to identifying and maximizing joint-use opportunities for all new schools that are built so that new District schools may enrich the lives of the communities they are intended to serve;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Board directs the Superintendent to deliver within 60 days a report on school size and school configuration that includes the following at a minimum:

• Total number of schools in the District grouped by school size in categories of 0 – 500 students, 500 –1,000 students, and more than 1,000 students, and grouped by type of school (elementary, middle, k-8, high, continuation, other),

• Total number of small learning communities at the high school level

• Total number of small learning communities at the middle school level,

• Current plans for increasing the number of small learning communities within high schools,

• Current plans for increasing the number of small learning communities within middle schools,

• Current plans for increasing the number of K-8 schools;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Board directs the Superintendent to deliver within 120 days a report which assesses the feasibility of transforming elementary and middle schools into K-8 schools. This report should include at a minimum:

• A list of all existing elementary schools that have the projected facility capacity to add a 6th, 7th and/or 8th grade,

• A prioritized list of the ten elementary schools that can most easily be transformed into K-8 schools. Prioritization should be based on: a) current and expected facility capacity of the elementary schools, b) prioritizing elementary schools that feed into middle schools that have exceeded their original intended operating capacity, and c) community demand,

• Preliminary analysis of the financial cost, the impact on school employees and the impact on the community of transforming prioritized ten elementary schools into K-8 schools,

• A detailed process for how the District will make a final determination on whether or not to transform the ten prioritized elementary into K-8 schools,

• A recommendation for whether or not the District should focus on transforming elementary and middle schools into K-8 schools.

8 “TEACH LAUSD” CAMPAIGN

WHEREAS, The Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles is responsible for ensuring that children educated in Los Angeles Unified School District graduate college prepared and career ready;

WHEREAS, Teachers are the drivers of high achievement;

WHEREAS, The District must attract highly qualified, teachers, counselors, classified staff members, administrators, police officers, and other employees to work in the District; WHEREAS, All schools must be fully staffed in order to provide optimal service to students and parents;

WHEREAS, The number of teachers that the District needs to hire annually over the next few years is likely to increase substantially due to implementation of SB 1133;

WHEREAS, The District should focus on attracting more educators from graduate schools and other school districts to work in the District, on getting more professionals from other industries to move into teaching, and on influencing more college graduates to go into the teaching profession.

WHEREAS, The Board believes more individuals would apply to work at the District if the District improved its marketing and recruiting capabilities;

WHEREAS, Partners such as Teach for America and the New Teacher Project have expressed an interest in increasing the scope of their partnerships to recruit high quality talent to the District;

WHEREAS, The Board has already launched efforts such as the Teacher Recruitment & Student Support Grant Program in order to attract more teachers to work in the District;

WHEREAS, The Board believes that recruiting is one of the most important functions performed by the District; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Board of Education of The City of Los Angeles directs the Superintendent to launch a “Teach LAUSD” campaign by November 1, 2007;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the goal of the “Teach LAUSD” campaign is to increase the total number of candidates that apply to be teachers, administrators, counselors, police officers, classified employees and volunteers in the District as well as the overall quality and experience level of those candidates;

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Superintendent delivers a detailed plan which lays out all key aspects of the “Teach LAUSD” campaign to the Board by October 1, 2007. This plan must include at a minimum the following:

• Identify target number of teachers, administrators, counselors, police officers, classified staff and other District employees that the District plans to hire by the start of the 2008-2009 school year,

• A description and timeline of the specific activities that the District will carry out during the 2007-2008 school year to increase the number of candidates that apply to work at District,

• A list of the partners and potential partners that the District will work with on the “Teach LAUSD” campaign as well as strategies for working with each type of partner. Partners should include universities, the City of Los Angeles and other municipalities, non-profit organizations such as Teach for America and the New Teacher Project, the business community, and for-profit recruiting agencies,

• Incentives the District could potentially provide to attract employees such as low-income housing, tuition reimbursement programs, and bonuses,

• Communications strategy including sample marketing materials that will be used in campaign such as TV and print advertisements, pamphlets and web pages,

• Specific strategies for influencing professionals to switch careers and come into education and for influencing more young people to come into education,

• A financial analysis of what it will cost to run the “Teach LAUSD” campaign during the 2007-2008 school year

• Strategies for funding the costs of the “Teach LAUSD: campaign that are not currently funded in the District budget.

Mock Trial

Success is outcome of mock trial

Students from a rough L.A. area just played attorneys. But the experience let them know that they can be real ones someday.

By Carla Rivera | LA Times Staff Writer

June 30, 2007 - Is Jesse Sunderson guilty of exploding a firecracker in his school locker after he was suspended from his soccer team, or is he a good kid who was framed by other students bent on revenge?

That was the question posed to a jury of civic leaders at a federal courthouse Thursday during a mock trial in which middle school students from the tough Rampart district took on the roles of prosecutors and defense attorneys.

The fictitious trial was the culmination of a 12-week program sponsored by the youth development group Heart of Los Angeles, in which the students learned about the legal system from attorneys at a top Los Angeles law firm.

Many of the students live in an environment that includes gangs, drugs and delinquency and where the criminal justice system is perceived more as an adversary than an advocate.

"Most of the kids we serve live in poverty. And for them just to walk down the street, they face so many obstacles that messes with their self-esteem and self-confidence," said Tony Brown, executive director of the youth group. The program "has made them feel like they are on top of the world and that they can be anything they want to be."

Many of the youngsters began the program withdrawn and unengaged, Brown said. Now they are vociferous and eager to stand their ground. And after experiencing the inner workings of the law, several said they wanted to become lawyers, FBI agents and detectives, as well as doctors, cartoonists and dancers.

"I learned about lawyers, juries, the penal code and what people like the judge do during a trial," said Marilyn Ann Flores, 13, who attends Virgil Middle School and gave the closing argument for the prosecution. She also wants to become a prosecutor in real life. "I want to put the bad guys away," she said.

To prepare for the trial, the students spent 1 1/2 hours each week working with attorneys at the downtown firm Bingham McCutchen, learning the basics of the court system, litigation and interrogating witnesses.

"We tried to introduce them to lots of people at the firm, and not just attorneys, so they could get an idea of the range of jobs that might be available to them," said J. Warren Rissier, a Bingham partner who is also a member of Heart of Los Angeles' board of directors.

The Sunderson case put the students' skills to the test in a trial in a federal courtroom, presided over by U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, before a gallery of family and friends. Before announcing the verdict, jury foreman Richard Riordan, the former mayor and an attorney with Bingham, said all were impressed by the students' arguments for and against.

But all the students wanted to know was whose side prevailed. An hour beforehand, Peter Meitzenheimer, 11, who attends Berendo Middle School, had delivered the prosecution's opening statement that laid out a curious case.

About 1 p.m. on a January school day, a sudden explosion caused great damage to student lockers and walls at Jefferson School. The assistant principal conducted a search and found a large bag of unexploded firecrackers in locker 633, which belonged to Jesse Sunderson. Jesse was arrested on suspicion of possession of fireworks and damage to property.

It emerged that his grades had been falling and that he had been kicked off the soccer team. Angry at his suspension, he told the coach about two teammates who had been caught drinking beer and successfully argued that they too should be kicked off the team. Jesse said he was in the band room practicing his saxophone at the time of the explosion, but no one could verify that he was there.

Not so fast, said Sharlotte Gonzalez, 14, a Virgil Middle School student arguing for the defense. Jesse was a good student who worked part time delivering papers and had no motive to destroy the school's lockers. In fact, he had overheard his former teammates blaming him for all their problems, and they were the ones who had a motive for framing him.

Points were scored by the prosecution when it was pointed out that Jesse's job gave him the means to buy fireworks. Testimony by a defense witness, however, revealed that one of Jesse's suspended teammates was observed near the scene just before the explosion.

In her closing argument, defense attorney Paulina Smith, an 11-year-old who attends Los Angeles Academy of Arts and Enterprise, said the case was "full of reasonable doubt." The jury agreed, finding Jesse — portrayed by Bingham attorney Mark K. Arimoto — not guilty.

The defense table cheered with high fives all around, while the prosecution side looked on glumly.

"You young adults did a fine job, and I can see all of you 10 years from now on [the TV series] 'Law & Order,' " Riordan said.

After the trial, each of the students received a certificate of thanks from the judge with an official court seal. Paulina's mom, Monica Smith, praised the youth program for giving the students a taste of the legal profession.

Paulina, she said, "took on the defense side and won the case. She wants to be a lawyer, and this is excellent exposure for her future dreams."

TITLE IX

L.A. SCHOOLS REFLECT TITLE IX CHALLENGES: On the 35th anniversary of the law, the imprint is clear as the district prepares to open 37 new high schools by 2012.

by Eric Sondheimer, LA Times Staff Writer

June 23, 2007 - Title IX is exactly 35 years old today and a prime example of its impact — and accompanying challenges — can be seen within the building boom of the Los Angeles Unified School District.

The law was enacted to thwart sex discrimination, and balancing gender equity has indeed become part of the blueprint as the nation's second-largest district prepares to open 37 new high schools by 2012.

For example, each gymnasium is being designed with equal access in mind, and with matching locker rooms. That's a dramatic change from the early 1970s, when the last of LAUSD's original 49 comprehensive campuses was completed — none taking girls' sports into consideration during construction.

Considering that participation in sports by high school girls is roughly 10 times what it was in 1971-72, the year before Title IX became law — 294,015 according to the National Federation of State High School Associations, compared to 2,953,355 in 2005-06 — that's no longer an option.

"It's part of what we do now," said Sue Spears, the district's director of the Educational Equity Compliance.

And it's not easy. There are plenty of limitations on money and space, meaning compromise has become key throughout the process.

Arleta, a first-year high school, has a softball diamond but no room for a baseball field. Even so, its baseball team advanced to the City Section small schools final played earlier this month at Dodger Stadium, practicing and playing its home games at a local park.

The Miguel Contreras Learning Center that opened on Third Street in downtown Los Angeles last year was able to build baseball and softball diamonds on one parcel — but center field overlaps, meaning the fields can't be used to their full capability at the same time.

"We know sports is important to boys and girls," Contreras Athletic Director Rose Low said, "and we have to make it work."

The issue is no less prevalent at the dozens of campuses that were designed before Title IX became law.

Granada Hills Kennedy High, which opened in 1971, didn't have an on-campus softball field until 2004. Crenshaw, Hollywood and Narbonne highs were others that had to upgrade softball facilities to make them comparable to existing baseball venues after Title IX complaints.

At Chatsworth, a seven-time City baseball champion, a $20,000 softball field opened this year after complaints that the baseball field, with its pristine grass infield, electronic scoreboard and stadium seating, far exceeded amenities at the softball facility.

"We believe that the girls deserved a great field like the boys," Chatsworth Principal Jeff Davis said.

District officials say gender equity issues are taken seriously at LAUSD, where the Educational Equity Compliance Office investigates Title IX complaints.

Boys' and girls' teams must share gyms, tennis courts, soccer fields and swimming pools.

"You've got the big gym and the small gym. It's not boys' or girls' anymore," Contreras assistant principal Rosie Martinez said.

Barbara Fiege, commissioner of the City Section, which oversees sports competition within the LAUSD, recalls girls' sports being in their infancy when she started out as a coach at Dorsey High in 1975.

Back then, she said, "there were battles on high school campuses for sharing facilities and money for uniforms."

Now, by law, educational institutions that receive federal aid must comply with one of three basic requirements: by providing athletic opportunities in proportion to the student body as a whole; by demonstrating continued expansion of the underrepresented gender; by meeting the athletic interests of the underrepresented gender.

In recent years, the district has "made great strides in the number of participants, the number of sports and scheduling," Fiege said. But, she added: "There are still concerns with facilities. We're not done yet. We've got a ways to go. But people are willing to speak up, and fathers, in particular, are speaking up for their daughters if there's any inequity."

GOT DISCIPLINE?

In a free-speech ruling, Justice Thomas misstates the purpose of education.

By Jonathan Zimmerman | LA Times Opinion | Mr. Zimmerman wrote "Innocents Abroad: American Teachers in the American Century."

June 28, 2007 - What are schools for?

For the last decade, I've taught a history course with that title at New York University. My students and I examine the different purposes that Americans have assigned to public schools, including:

A. to teach the great humanistic traditions of the West;

B. to develop the individual interests of the child;

C. to promote social justice;

D. to prepare efficient workers.

Over the last four centuries, Americans have struggled to balance these goals — and many others — in their schools. To Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, however, there's only one right answer:

E. to instill discipline and obedience

That's what Thomas wrote this week in his strange concurring opinion in Morse vs. Frederick, better known as the "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" case. A banner with those words was unfurled by senior Joseph Frederick outside his Alaska high school, and he was suspended.

Ruling 5 to 4 in favor of the principal who censored the banner, the court decided that the school's interest in discouraging drug use outweighed the student's free-speech rights. But Thomas went further, insisting that the student had no right to free speech in the first place and that the history of American education proves it.

He's wrong. Simply put, the accurate history in Thomas' opinion is not relevant. And the relevant history that he recounts is not accurate.

Let's start with what he got right. As he correctly asserts, America's first schools primarily promoted discipline. "Early public schools were not places for freewheeling debates or exploration of competing ideas," Thomas wrote. The mostly male teaching force in the early 1800s brooked little or no dissent, often whipping children who challenged adult authority.

True enough. But so what? Here's the part that Thomas leaves out. From the very birth of the common school system in the 1830s, the strict discipline that he celebrates came under fire from a host of different Americans. The most prominent champion of common schools, Horace Mann, warned teachers against excessive force and the suppression of students' natural inclinations.

That's one reason Mann and his generation backed the hiring of female teachers, who were seen as more kind, tolerant and nurturing. (The other reason was that schools could pay them less.) By 1900, roughly three-quarters of American teachers were women.

The early 20th century would bring another burst of change to American schools, centered on the question of democracy. To reformers like John Dewey, schools based on strict discipline — and its pedagogical companion, rote memorization — could never give citizens the skills they needed to govern themselves. Instead of fostering mindless obedience, then, schools needed to teach children how to make up their own minds — that is, how to reason, deliberate and rule on complex political questions.

To be sure, plenty of Americans still wanted teachers to bring the kids to heel. And it's fair to ask whether schools today promote the kind of inquiry that Dewey envisioned.

The point is not that Dewey was "right" or that everyone agreed with him. Rather, history teaches us that Americans have always disagreed on the proper goal for schools.

None of this debate appears in Thomas' opinion, which gets cut off just when things get interesting. To Thomas, American educational history seems to end at the start. Our first schools aimed to instill discipline, he wrote, so that's what schools should do.

Worse, Thomas assumes that the schools succeeded in this task. "Teachers commanded," he wrote, "and students obeyed." But this command melted away in recent years, Thomas claims, when courts invented specious student rights — and "undermined the traditional authority of teachers to maintain order in the public schools."

Here's the part of Thomas' opinion that would be relevant — if it were true. But it's not. Yes, teachers tried to establish strict order and discipline in early American schools. As often as not, however, they failed.

Consider the 1833 memoir of Warren Burton, a New Hampshire minister. When faced with a particularly cruel teacher, Burton writes, his classmates revolted. They tackled the teacher, carried him outside and threw him down an icy hillside.

The theme appears in other memoirs and especially in fiction from the 19th century, which depicts unruly students — usually boys — challenging or mocking teacher authority. Think of Tom Sawyer lowering a cat by a string to snatch his bald teacher's wig. Such stories resonated with Americans because they understood — in ways Thomas does not — the chaos and violence that pervaded so many public schools.

So Thomas can spare us the nostalgia. Our schools were never the paragons of discipline he imagines. And pretending otherwise simply diverts us from the big question, which will never have a single answer:

What are schools for?

PATRONS' SWAY LEADS TO FRICTION IN CHARTER SCHOOL

by David M. Herszenhorn | New York Times

June 28, 2007 - The Beginning With Children Charter School, housed in a former factory in Brooklyn, landed on the state's list of high-performing schools this year, thanks to rising English and math test scores among black and Hispanic students.

But its founders and wealthy patrons, Joseph H. and Carol F. Reich, who have poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the school, think it could be better. "It's above average," said Mr. Reich, 72, "but considering the effort and the capability and the resources, we don't feel we're getting the best we can."

So last month, the couple — threatening to cut ties, including financial support — forced most of the school's trustees to resign in a push for wide management changes, and better student achievement.

The move caused an uproar among parents and teachers who said they would be left with no formal say at the school. "My voice is going to be lost," said Shakema Daise, the mother of a first grader.

The clash has exposed fault lines of wealth and class that are perhaps inevitable as philanthropists, in New York and nationwide, increasingly invest in public education, providing new schools to children in poor neighborhoods while making communities dependent on their generosity.

And for those lucky to have such benefactors, the situation raises core questions: Who ultimately controls charter schools, which are financed by taxpayers but often rely heavily on charitable donations? Do the schools, which operate outside the control of the local school district, answer to parents, or to their wealthy founders?

At Beginning With Children, many parents and teachers say that the Reichs' main interest is to burnish their reputation as advocates for charter schools, and that the school's original purpose, of catering to each child's individual needs, is now secondary to drilling for exams in an effort to elevate scores and the Reichs' credibility.

The Reichs support not just Beginning With Children, and a second school they founded in Brooklyn, but charter schools generally. They gave $10 million to help create the New York City Center for Charter School Excellence, a nonprofit group dedicated to opening 50 more of the schools.

"Joe and Carol Reich started the school for whatever reasons initially," said Gail Sims Bliss, a teacher and former trustee who resigned reluctantly. "But it has grown into their participation in the charter movement with a capital M." She added, "They cannot allow the school to compromise their status and their progress in this particular movement."

In an interview, Mr. and Mrs. Reich said they were committed to their original promise of providing children with an education that would lead to success in college and in life. "We promised to build them a model education program that would lay the groundwork for their future," said Mr. Reich, a retired investment banker. "This didn't come from nowhere. We were really worried that the school wasn't delivering."

The Reichs are not alone in directing their charity to schools. The Walton, Broad and Gates foundations, all founded by billionaires, support charter schools nationwide.

Andre Agassi, the retired tennis great, opened a charter school named after him in Las Vegas. The former N.B.A. star, Kevin Johnson, started two charter schools in Sacramento. The billionaire corporate raider, Carl C. Icahn, has a charter school named for him in the Bronx. And Courtney Sales Ross, the multimillionaire widow of a Time Warner executive, has the Ross Global Academy Charter School, housed in the basement of the city's Education Department headquarters.

Nor are the Reichs the only ones facing difficulties. The Ross Global Academy is on its fourth principal in less than a year.

Frederick M. Hess, an expert on philanthropy in education, said there would be more disputes like the one in Brooklyn as high-profile donors invest their reputations in schools and face "the enormous kind of name-brand question."

"When those schools disappoint them, when there are disputes or divergence regarding institutional mission," asked Mr. Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, "how are they going to negotiate this relationship?" He added, "What we are seeing is really just the front end of what is going to be a fascinating dynamic."

In educational philanthropy, the Reichs were pioneers. They fought for years to get the city's Board of Education to let them open the Beginning With Children school in 1992 in an impoverished section of Williamsburg, before charter schools became a national trend and at a time when private donors were generally reluctant to write checks to public school systems. The school converted to charter status in 2001.

They fought through bureaucratic tangles to get the system to accept a virtually free building, a former Pfizer pharmaceutical factory, which the school now occupies for $1 a year.

The school has done well, though far from stellar. This year, 69 percent of students in Grades 3 to 8 scored at or above grade level on the state English exam, compared with the 56 percent citywide average. And 77 percent of students scored at or above grade level on the math exam, compared with 65 percent citywide. The state reauthorized the school's charter last year, giving it a full five-year renewal.

But the Reichs are not satisfied and said the school's trustees were an obstacle. Charter schools get taxpayer funding, but are run independently from local school districts under terms set out in their state-approved charters.

The 14-member Beginning With Children board included appointees from the Reichs' foundation, which helps finance the school; parents; teachers; the principal; and community representatives. The board chairman, John Day, is a former Pfizer executive.

The Reichs said the problem was that the board was "constituency-based" and that they wanted members with practical skills like fund-raising or public relations instead. To get the changes, they threatened in a strongly worded letter to cut off their support unless all but three of the board members resigned. Among those told to quit were five parent and faculty representatives.

At a board meeting last month, parents lashed out at the Reichs, angrily describing their relationship as that of master and servant or landlord and tenant.

One parent said the threat to cut ties was "a gun pointed at the head of every child in this facility." In recent years, the school has faced annual budget gaps of up to $635,000 that were filled by the Reichs' foundation, and parents said they feared that the school would close without the Reichs' help.

Mrs. Reich, 71, said of the letter: "It was not a blunt threat. It was a choice. You can go the way you are going or you can restructure yourselves."

Many parents and teachers said they agreed that the board did not function well. But they also said there were disagreements with the Reichs over issues like how much to focus on standardized testing. And they accused the Reichs of meddling in areas like teacher hiring and the choice of a reading program.

"The emphasis on testing means the school is moving away from its original mission," said Karl Klingbeil, a parent. "They just got tired of listening to us talk about curriculum and pedagogy."

The Reichs said they did not want to squabble over such points, noting that the principal runs the school and that they themselves are not voting trustees. They said they had proposed creating a faculty senate and parent council to give input to the new trustees.

The city school system has stood at the sidelines. Garth Harries, who oversees charter schools for the Education Department, said they were intended to operate with wide autonomy. "We're confident in this case, with Joe and Carol," he said, "You are dealing with folks who have the interests of the school and the kids in mind."

The three remaining board members at Beginning With Children have enlisted a consultant to help identify new trustees, and the Reichs said they were moving aggressively to set things right. "This was our school, it's our dream, it's our vision," Mr. Reich said. "We are going to fight to make this school the best school it can be for this community."

SCHOOL BOARD OKS GENERAL FUND BUDGET

by Joel Rubin, LA Times Staff Writer

June 29, 2007 — The Los Angeles Unified Board of Education on Thursday approved a $6.2-billion general fund budget for the coming school year.

The unanimous vote came after the seven board members peppered Supt. David L. Brewer and other school district officials with questions and concerns during lengthy debate that spanned two meetings this week.

The budget, which calls for the reduction and reorganization of several programs and departments in the mammoth school district in order to close a $95-million shortfall, still must be certified by county education officials. And until the state Legislature finalizes California's budget, which includes most of the funding public schools receive, allotments are still somewhat tentative.

Faced with growing public criticism, Brewer relented somewhat on a proposal to recoup nearly $5 million by charging after-school youth groups to use district athletic fields and facilities. He agreed to lower the fees that will be imposed and to use a sliding scale so groups that serve low-income children pay less.

Brewer also scrambled to appease some board members' concerns about his proposal to reduce at midyear the number of teachers assigned to those schools where student enrollment drops. To help administrators keep staffing levels stable at such schools, Brewer agreed to free up some so-called restricted funds and to allow schools to put aside money at the start of the year.

AN OPEN LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENT BREWER AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION

June 28, 2007

Please excuse this last minute appeal - I have just returned from vacation to discover that "Pay to Play" has - like a bad penny - returned to LAUSD as a budget cutting strategy.

Two plus years ago I delivered to the Board of Ed the following resolution from PTA, opposing charging fees for after school use of school playgrounds and facilities. Afterwards I apologized to John Liechty, who as the Beyond the Bell assistant superintendent was official advocate for the fees. I considered John the most knowledgeable and most "for kids" person at Beaudry - I was uncomfortable opposing him on this matter.

John looked at me square in the eye with his no nonsense glare and told me PTA and I was on the right side and his and the budget office's proposal was wrong; wrong for Beyond the Bell, wrong for LAUSD and wrong for kids.

With that endorsement I bring the resolution back to you - and suggest that subsidizing after school recreation programs is a mission not for program operators but for city government, private fundraising, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. The board rejected the proposal back ion '05, I ask that you do it again.

Scott Folsom
President
Los Angeles Tenth District PTSA

NO PAY TO PLAY: A Resolution of the Los Angeles Tenth District PTSA, California Congress of Parents, Teachers and Students, Inc.

20 April 2005

WHEREAS the LAUSD Budget Office proposes that Community, Youth, After School and Weekend Community Groups – including but not limited to Girl and Boy Scouts, PTA and other parent and community associations, nonprofit after school supplemental education, recreation and sports programs that have traditionally used LAUSD facilities for free – be charged a fee in the future for such use, and

WHEREAS these groups and programs provide incalculable value to the children of Los Angeles, providing safe and supervised programs that enhance and compliment the educational mission of the school district, and

WHEREAS District staff has demonstrated preference for adult recreation and sports programs that pay a fee over youth programs that traditionally do not because adult programs generate revenue, and

WHEREAS Schools are by statute and by district policy Centers of the Community they serve, all School District property is public property, and the public is entitled to the use of its property whenever possible, now

THEREFORE THE LOS ANGELES TENTH DISTRICT PTSA RESOLVES

1. That we are OPPOSED to charging any bona-fide nonprofit community, parent or youth group that serves the public good for use of School District property where such use has been free in the past.

2. That the Board of Education direct that Youth After School and Recreation Programs be given precedence over adult groups in scheduling and access to LAUSD property without consideration to whether the adult programs generate revenue — the value of these programs to the schoolchildren served and the greater community far exceeds any revenue generated or lost.

3. That the School District actively partner with other public agencies and philanthropic organizations to find and secure funding streams to defray its costs in providing after school educational and recreational access and use of the public property it holds in trust.

4. That this resolution be delivered to the LAUSD Board of Education, circulated to the units and councils of Los Angeles Tenth District PTSA and forwarded to Thirty-first District PTSA for their consideration

Motion made by Scott Folsom, Vice President for Education, as a recommendation of the Education Committee/No second required

Voted upon and adopted by the Executive Board at a regular meeting April 20, 2005

/s/ Marta Lear, President and Chair of the Executive Board
/s/ Martha Wenkel. Secretary

ON PAY TO PLAY: WHERE ARE THE ANGELS?

"…so that groups that serve low income children pay less?" How about nothing?

If this city can't come up with five million dollars a year – from the private or public sectors - so kids can play organized sports on school playgrounds after school and on weekends without charging volunteers, non-profits and/or the kids and their parents for use of facilities we the taxpayers already own Los Angeles deserves the gang problems we have and we are simply not worthy to be the great city we aspire to be. There are billionaires among us who find that kind of money in their washing machines after a couple of loads – or between the pillows of their couches. —smf

HEY TIMES, TRY TEACHING FOR ONE DAY! - A response to an editorial on United Teachers-Los Angeles.

By John Lloyd – LA Times Blowback

May 22, 2007 —Well, the real agenda was revealed the day after the L.A. Unified School Board elections. Smash the union, says the L.A. Times in its May 17 editorial "LAUSD's opportunity." The Times blames United Teachers Los Angeles for the woes of one of the most diverse—and challenging—districts in the United States.

The Times doesn't mince words. It calls the UTLA "the most regressive force in the L.A. Unified School District," and says the answer to the district's woes are for the union to "loosen work rules and toss tenure out the classroom window." It paints the UTLA as a barrier to "progress," a dinosaur "out of sync with the realities of modern education." "The post-World War II system of tenure, rigid work rules and budget-breaking pensions," the Times alleges, "have stultified schools." What's more, younger teachers "are more interested in good wages, upward mobility and affordable housing than in lifetime sinecures and fat retirement packages." The Times urges the new school board members, backed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, to institute "more flexible work hours and duties," such as requiring teachers to give up their own lunch breaks to supervise the playgrounds and requiring them to work after school "to make campuses safer." The Times then ends by throwing up this brilliant old canard: let's get rid of "bad teachers" and reward "good teachers." Golly gee, why didn't we think of that sooner?

Let's take the last of these claims first. No one—least of all the UTLA—would disagree with the idea we ought to reward "good teachers," and fire "bad teachers." But what does this mean, exactly? First of all, anyone who devotes her life and career to educating young people is to be applauded, not thrown in the trash can if her students' test scores don't meet some district bureaucrat's standard.

Quite simply, the LAUSD needs to see its teachers as its most valuable resource and work with struggling teachers to improve. Step one might be for a peer group of teachers and administrators to sit down with the underperforming teacher, figure out what that teacher's strengths and weaknesses are, and work with that person to devise concrete strategies for improvement. This process might also—gasp!—ask the teacher what he/she needs (more aides, better curricular support, professional development opportunities, etc.) to do a better job. The Times approach, however, is all top-down. A district bureaucrat says jump, and the teacher, like an obedient factory worker, jumps. The teacher doesn't dare ask questions (remember, tenure will be a thing of the past, and you can be fired for asking the wrong questions).

From the tenor of its proposal, the Times seems to think that teaching isn't really hard work, after all. The Times apparently thinks it is not unreasonable to expect teachers to stand in front of a class or restless ninth graders all day—all of whom are eager learners, of course—and then supervise students at lunch and after school, too. Why, who needs a lunch break? (Hint: it must be those "bad teachers"). I'd like to see the Times editors do this for one day. They might then realize that educating and supervising young people can't be done on the cheap, and that the District needs to pay for playground supervisors and additional staff to oversee worthy after-school programs.

The Times claims that younger teachers are interested in "good wages, upward mobility, and affordable housing." And older teachers presumably want, what, lower wages, downward mobility, and unaffordable housing? Precisely how ending tenure will address the lack of affordable housing is not explained by the Times. But, never mind that, the Times has another solution: get rid of teachers' pensions! After all, we know those younger teachers won't need them. They'll be living large on all the equity they've earned from that "affordable housing" they've invested in with their "high wages."

Far from being a forward-thinking solution to the L.A. schools' myriad challenges, the Times proposal is nothing more than an old-fashioned attack on teachers' unions. The Times wants to send teachers back to the bad old days before teachers' unions when teachers had to go hat-in-hand to their school boards and beg for a cost-of-living increase. If the district said no, and the teacher didn't like it, she was free to walk.

Then again, maybe I just don't understand the superior wisdom of the Times. After all, I was educated in that out-of-date post-World War II public school system where teachers were treated with respect by society, and weren't expected to give up their dignity and their rights to do their jobs.

John Lloyd is an assistant professor of history at Cal Poly Pomona.

THE DWP RULING: Sordid details and Letters to the Editor

Under the ruling, the DWP will have to pay roughly:

• $95 million to Los Angeles Unified School District,

• $45 million to Los Angeles County,

• $39 million to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority,

• $31 million to California state agencies,

• $8 million to the Los Angeles Community College District,

• $5 million to UCLA.

Source: DAILY NEWS

FUNDING SOURCES: A court ruling may jeopardize the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power's contribution to the city's budget.

Estimated receipts for 2007-08 budget, top 6 sources (in millions)

		Percent of
	Amount	budget
Property tax	$1,397	20.6%
Utility users tax	627	9.2
Fees and fines	615	9.1
Business tax	478	7.0
Sales tax	349	5.1
DWP transfer	185	2.7

--

Source: City of Los Angeles 2007-08 proposed budget & LA TIMES

…though the DWP Employee(below) makes an interesting point about whether the

DWP’s ‘contribution’ to the city budget is legal!

LETTERS TO THE DAILY BREEZE / TDB reprinted the Daily News article by Kerry Cavanaugh

"DWP will find..."

a way around to avoid actually paying up. While we get saddled with yet another rate hike!

- MLD~ Wilmington, CA

posted: Wednesday, June 13rd at 9:37 AM

"DWP Employee"

Looks like you should have been the whistle blower and pocket some cash yourself. But question, if a DWP employee knew this was going on, don't he have a moral obligation to bring it to the attention of someone though?

- fred

posted: Wednesday, June 13rd at 9:22 AM

"DWP Rips Off Customers"

As a DWP employee, I can attest that the DWP has been ripping off its customers for years. First of all, the annual fund transfer to the city is basically a hidden tax. Even though the DWP is not supposed to make a profit, it charges millions of dollars more than it needs to for water and electricity and then "transfers" it to City Hall. On the books, it looks like the DWP broke even. However, it is extra money going to the City without looking like a tax. Second, the DWP has also been sending millions of rate payer dollars the the IBEW Local 18 union. The union is padding its wallet and building a new multi-million dollar headquarters building using money creatively transferred from DWP earmarked as funds for "safety" or "training." Both of these things should be investigated. Then, the electricity and water rates should be LOWERED. Instead, the DWP will be asking for rate increases this summer to continue to fund the city and the union.

- DWP Employee

posted: Wednesday, June 13rd at 8:24 AM

"State Law?"

Does this mean that So Cal Edison can charge the same agency and make a profit but the DWP can not? If that is true the state law should be changed so both utilities have an equal standing. They both have the same overhead. They pay the same to produce power and maintain their power grid.

- Adam

posted: Wednesday, June 13rd at 7:50 AM