Reaction to the LA Schools Villaraigoof
When you talk to people about one thing for a year, then spring something entirely different on them in the space of two days, you're bound to spark some heated debate.
First, the understated "Some wary of plan" in the Los Angeles Daily News. The Republicans and some business groups don't like it.
Then the more-to-the-point "Romer: Antonio sold out." LAUSD Superintendent Roy Romer states the obvious, "This is a very serious mistake and one the mayor and unions bought off on because they're trying to serve each other's interests."
This story also contains a quote from Thomas Saenz, counsel to the mayor. "People are missing the forest for the trees: Who's in charge is the mayor," Saenz said. "There's one person in charge of the system, and that's the mayor." (more on this in a minute)
Also, "Where does the power lie? It doesn't lie with the board. It lies with the union," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst and senior scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California.
Duke Helfand and Joel Rubin of the Los Angeles Times asked rank-and-file teachers what they thought of the plan: "Villaraigosa's elaborate plan to take control of the Los Angeles Unified School District grabbed the attention of rank-and-file teachers Thursday, the day after it was announced. While some applauded it, many disagreed with him — and their own union leadership."
Joe Mathews provided details of the negotiations, including the heartwarming anecdote that Villaraigosa and union negotiators shared war stories about the 1989 LA schools strike during breaks in the bargaining.
UTLA's brief statement on its web site should give pause to the mayor, his representatives, and his counsel, Thomas Saenz: "UTLA has come to an agreement with the Mayor that takes mayoral control off the table and instead seeks legislation that moves us closer to real school reform."
Yep, you have to love an agreement that puts the mayor in sole charge but at the same time takes mayoral control off the table.
But the Great Spitball-in-the-Eye Award goes to California Teachers Association President Barbara Kerr, who after coming out of a closed-door negotiation with no parental or public input, to introduce a plan that will not be voted on by the citizens of Los Angeles, said:
"The best school improvement decisions are made when parents, teachers and local communities are involved."
Well, one out of three is about average for LA schools.
First, the understated "Some wary of plan" in the Los Angeles Daily News. The Republicans and some business groups don't like it.
Then the more-to-the-point "Romer: Antonio sold out." LAUSD Superintendent Roy Romer states the obvious, "This is a very serious mistake and one the mayor and unions bought off on because they're trying to serve each other's interests."
This story also contains a quote from Thomas Saenz, counsel to the mayor. "People are missing the forest for the trees: Who's in charge is the mayor," Saenz said. "There's one person in charge of the system, and that's the mayor." (more on this in a minute)
Also, "Where does the power lie? It doesn't lie with the board. It lies with the union," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst and senior scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California.
Duke Helfand and Joel Rubin of the Los Angeles Times asked rank-and-file teachers what they thought of the plan: "Villaraigosa's elaborate plan to take control of the Los Angeles Unified School District grabbed the attention of rank-and-file teachers Thursday, the day after it was announced. While some applauded it, many disagreed with him — and their own union leadership."
Joe Mathews provided details of the negotiations, including the heartwarming anecdote that Villaraigosa and union negotiators shared war stories about the 1989 LA schools strike during breaks in the bargaining.
UTLA's brief statement on its web site should give pause to the mayor, his representatives, and his counsel, Thomas Saenz: "UTLA has come to an agreement with the Mayor that takes mayoral control off the table and instead seeks legislation that moves us closer to real school reform."
Yep, you have to love an agreement that puts the mayor in sole charge but at the same time takes mayoral control off the table.
But the Great Spitball-in-the-Eye Award goes to California Teachers Association President Barbara Kerr, who after coming out of a closed-door negotiation with no parental or public input, to introduce a plan that will not be voted on by the citizens of Los Angeles, said:
"The best school improvement decisions are made when parents, teachers and local communities are involved."
Well, one out of three is about average for LA schools.
I was one of the "yellow shirt" parents who went to Sacramento to oppose AB 1381.
Our main point was that we shouldn't have been there to begin with. As our parent representative, Bill Ring testified; "LAUSD my be an easy dog to kick...but it's OUR dog, Senators". This should have been decided in LA, not a backroom deal in Sacramento.
Accountability is incomprehensible in this plan. Where do I go to solve IEP problems under this plan? The Mayor? The powerless Board? Special needs children were in the Mayor's draft plan, on page 40 listed as "leftovers". LAUSD has the Modified Consent Decree. How will the 36 schools he is to control (basically forming a new LEA)function under the Decree? Or will he cherry-pick administrators, teachers and children to ensure his "pilot" a success as charter schools do now?
Charters have discriminated against special needs children for many years (my child was driven to clinical depression in 1st & 3rd grades in a Pacific Palisades charter elementary school). There is not enough accountability.
Steve Barr of Green Dot Schools is also on the State Charter Advisory Committee. He is creating policy to benefit himself. He just forced through a "land use" agreement at a recent School Board meeting to have one of his charter high schools on an elementary school campus...The land grab begins. Is it appropriate for a high school population to be mingling with elementary students?
The original language in AB 1381 was for "school gardens. pupil nutrition". It was gutted to fast-track the Mayor's agenda. If he, and Assemblymember Nunez truly cared about children, they would not have ruined the original bill's language. This IS a power trip and nothing else. LAUSD has a balanced budget - the Mayor doesn't - he needs our bond money to distribute without transparency to further his plans...and they are not in our children's best interest.
Posted by
mom with special needs child |
July 05, 2006 7:10 AM
I also have a special-needs child driven to decompensation by a Palisades charter school. There was no accountability. Can something be done in the Palisades? I would like to get to know you. My snailmail address is Palisades Letter Shop, Box #3178, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272.
Posted by
Anonymous |
October 15, 2006 3:56 AM
Post a Comment