In the past few years, the privatization movement has targeted Los Angeles as a ripe target, in part because billionaire Eli Broad wants to squash the public schools where he lives, and also because the state has exceedingly lax regulation of charters. The state laws were written during Arnold Schwarzenegger’s time as governor, when he packed the state board with charter advocates.
In Los Angeles, the privatizers face a stumbling block: an elected school board. Each election, they dump millions into campaigns for their allies.
This is year is crucial. The privatizers’ main target is Steve Zimmer, the board president. Steve began his career in TFA but didn’t move on to a lucrative career in high finance. He remained an LAUSD teacher for 17 years. When he ran for school board, the big names of corporate reform spent millions to defeat him, but he won. He was outspent 5-1, but he prevailed. Can he do it again?
Zimmer is known as a thoughtful, deluberate, and fair-minded leader. He is not a partisan. But the privatizers don’t want a fair-minded board president. They want someone to champion their cause. They want power. They want control.
Yet the privatizers are starting their campaign to unseat him. Expect more millions from a handful of the wealthy elite–none of whom have ever had children in the public schools of Los Angeles–to knock Zimmer off the board.
Here is a description of his challenger, written by Joshua Leibner, a National Board Certified teacher in LAUSD.
As you may know by now, Nick Melvoin is going to be running for LAUSD’ President Steve Zimmer’s seat on the School Board.
It’s important to know his biography which definitely influences his political orientation on education. Nick comes from a very well-to-do Hollywood family and spent his youth in private schools and then off to Harvard and later LMU (the incubator for LA’s Reform movement with John Deasy and Ref Rodriguez as star alumni). He taught for two years in Brooklyn after receiving his five week teacher training and considers his TFA experience important “to make young, promising people aware of the issues of education, so that when they ‘graduate’ from Teach for America and become important leaders in society, they will effect long term change in the education system.”
Melovin as director of policy, communications and associate counsel for former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s Great Public Schools Los Angeles and is currently a consultant to the Charter and Reform advocates Educators4Excellence and Teach Plus.
Melvoin worked on the ACLU’s Reed v. California lawsuit, which challenged LA Unified’s seniority-based teacher layoff policies, by helping recruit former students and co-workers from Markham to join the lawsuit. He also testified in the Vergara v. California lawsuit where a group of students successfully argued that the state’s teacher employment laws are unconstitutional.
In LA only four months ago, he penned an article for Campbell Brown’s The Seventy Four where he says of Eli Broad’s plan to charterize LAUSD: “If I were a shareholder of LAUSD — and as a taxpayer, I guess we all are — I might welcome a hostile takeover. In fact, a hostile takeover might be precisely what our district needs.”
Now, I am no huge fan of Steve Zimmer because for too long, he was silent on what was happening in education reform in general and in LA in particular. When educators wanted strong leadership in decrying what was happening in our schools by the rich and powerful, Zimmer oftentimes gave comfort to the very enemies who today have set him in their sights.
There is no doubt this is going to be one of the most publicized races in the nation. With a year to go before the election, we can now see how great the nationwide stakes are in these “piddly” school board battles.
That’s a year of the tsunami of fundraising that is going to be going on on Melvoin’s behalf through dark money contributions. Every charter group, hedge fund and corporate entity is going to pour massive resources into this race.
LA’s District 4 School Board race will be the most expensive battle royale in the country’s history. LA’s UTLA will pour tremendous money into the campaign to back Zimmer but it certainly won’t be enough to compete with what he is going to be up against. Melvoin is a perfect Central Casting school board candidate to “speak” to LA’s more affluent, white and politically engaged West Side. The Reformers know what a great “fit” he is going to be.
The problem is that what Melvoin believes to be “Progressive Education” is radically at odds with mine and other public school advocates definition. His backers are of the same pedigree as those who give to the Jeb Bush campaign and understand completely both Donald Trump’s AND Eli Broad’s use of money to buy the public policy they want. In LA, he will sell himself as a liberal and I’m sure he believes it.
So here’s an opportunity.
This should be the race where the Democrats battle out what Progressive Education is. This is the fight that has been a long time coming between the Neo-liberal Democrats and the Social Justice Democrats. It is going to be an argument that will challenge notions of race and class and privilege. Each side is claiming that mantle and I love to finally have that debate in public.
Our side has got to be ready and smart. The potential pitfalls are numerous. It is very tricky navigating and we have to articulate forcefully why Melvoin’s notion of education is wrong for the MAJORITY of LA.

“Agnostics” always get rolled by true believers. Why would ed reform be satisfied with an “agnostic” when they can have a true believer? Why take someone who thinks charters can co-exist with public schools if they can have all charters ?
It is painful to watch the moderates get rolled over and over and over, because that was always how it would end. In ten years the whole “agnostic” group will be gone, along with public schools, and they’ll all be wondering how this happened.
The sad part for me as a public school parent is I don’t have an advocate. I have a group of “agnostics” and then a group of zealous privatizers. I have somehow ended up with no committed supporters in government, along with the rest of the 93% of kids who attend public schools in this state.
LikeLike
In a later version of this piece that has been published in the LA Progressive, Leibner made some corrections:
– Melvoin taught at LA’s Edwin Markum Middle School after receiving his five-week teacher training from TFA.
– The Great Public Schools of LA is, of course, Eli Broad’s anti-charter initiative.
LikeLike
The LA Schools are kind of like the San Andres Fault….It is not a matter of “if” a disaster will strike but rather when.
LikeLike
Here is another type of attack; this one is on public school CHILDREN:
LikeLike
Nauseating, but at least if there’s one upside it’s that Angela Duckworth, like Dr. Frankenstein, is finally having to deal with the monster she created.
LikeLike
The whole notion seems dubious at best. I seriously doubt that teaching children compliance is going to erase generations of serial poverty. It is amazing to me that they are seeking a social-emotional assessment when they are not really sure what they are measuring.
LikeLike
The whole system is designed to keep people in poverty there for life. There is no incentive to get off the system. Have more babies, get paid more. Get free medical. Get housing assistance to the point it does not cost hardly anything.
LikeLike
drest727 – are you serious? Do you know anything about “welfare”? As in, for instance, it’s just about impossible to live on it? And the fact that, thanks to Clinton, it’s a lifetime allotment of 5 years that you can be on it? And you have to be working, which consigns women (mostly) to minimum or sub-minimum wage dead-end jobs away from their children?
LikeLike
Dienne…yep…I’m serious….I have students in my classes that are 3rd and 4th generation welfare and no much motivation to get off. They are encouraged to start having kids young so that they can get benefits.
I know it is sad but that is the reality of my experiences.
LikeLike
Drext727, what % of your students are several generation welfare families? I seem to remember that the national figures even before Clinton’s revamp were lower than I expected given the rhetoric. I know they are higher in localized areas. It seems to me that the support families living in poverty receive is seldom designed to help lift them out of poverty but only to maintain them just above subsistence, especially in areas that have few resources to begin with. I look at Illinois and the programs that are cut first always seem to be those for the most vulnerable.
In another vein, I don’t think research on grit is anything new. Years ago, there was great interest in studying those individuals that did make it out of abject poverty through hard work and incredible determination. I seem to remember that a key element was having a mentor, that person who believed the individual could succeed and encouraged them to do so. Perhaps we should forget about “measuring” grit and focus on providing the necessary supports. When people complain about throwing money at a problem, I think it depends on how that money is used. Mentorship, vocational training, tutoring,…I would guess are more effective. I do remember reading about one woman reporting on how she had to learn how to hold a job through job counseling.
LikeLike
There’s another thing for which we in L.A. must prepare in this race: the CCSA and other backers of Melvoin will blame Zimmer for what happened under John Deasy. This despite the fact that Deasy was operating FOR THEM when he perpetrated honest services fraud in the Apple/Pearson deal and testified against the public body he represented in court. They did this to Bennet Kayser, who was ideologically the furthest one could be from Deasy, simply because he sat on the board while Deasy was destroying LAUSD from within.
LikeLike
Does anyone know what the “California system” for measuring charters is? Ed reformers in Ohio are promoting it in Ohio and the charge is it over-states the success of charters.
Since it’s being promoted by the absolute worst of the for-profit chains, I have my doubts on whether this should be imported into my state.
LikeLike
This is what national ed reform lobbyists are promoting in my state:
“Some charter advocates have proposed switching how the state judges student test score growth from a traditional value-added measure to something called a similar student measure, which the California Charter Association uses. The charter reform law mandates the Department of Education “conduct a study” to evaluate the usefulness of the California approach.
The difference between the two is that value-added accounts for students’ prior achievement as well as certain demographic factors such as poverty, while the similar student measure controls only for demographics but not prior achievement.
The for-profit charter school lobbyists want to move to this new measure with critics saying that’s because it would likely make charter schools look better.”
So the California Charter Association uses a measure for charter schools that makes charter schools “look better”?
I hope we’re not at risk of adopting a measure that a California charter lobbying group invented to promote charter schools and close public schools. Can someone in government be bothered to do the slightest due diligence on this stuff before it becomes law, or are lobbyists completely running our statehouses?
https://www.the74million.org/article/ohio-fixed-its-scandal-plagued-charter-schools-right-not-so-fast
LikeLike
Zimmer is not a friend of teachers but can probably count on UTLA spending another $1 million to elect him. Please weigh in and tell me how the two actually differ. Both are from TFA. Were they both at the TFA convention last month?
LikeLike
Zimmer and Melvoin are just different shades of the same horse. At least Zimmer gives nice speeches against charter schools before he votes to approve them.
LikeLike
Mevoin will be handily defeated if the voting public finds out how much money his campaign has received from millionaires and billionaires.
LikeLike
Diane, You wrote about a connection between Loyola Marymount University and the education reform movement/charter school connection. I have some questions I hope you can answer.
It has been stated that charter schools are in direct competition with Catholic schools, and this makes sense since parents can send their children to a charter school at no cost. Why, then, would a Catholic university be a part of that?
The Jesuit Order is extremely, shall we say, “progressive”. Did they do this in order to have access to large sums of private money for the university?
What else might explain this?
As I mentioned, the Jesuits being at one time proponents of Liberation Theology and progressive in their mission, are clearly putting their efforts into privately backed charter schools, even at the expense of Catholic schools. It seems that their interpretation of the Church’s social justice teaching requires a full commitment to ending poverty through any means possible, even if some Catholic schools must close.
LikeLike
Veritas – why don’t you ask Antonia Darder – the only social justice professor still at Loyola Marymount. She might tell you. She spoke at the UOO conference in Philly.
LikeLike
Joan, evidently the Jesuits have pulled out all of the stops in shaping “men for other men.” Or, it could be that LMU wishes to form all educators in accordance with their interpretation of Church social teaching. In checking the LMU website, I noticed they not only have the Charter School Leadership Academy, they also have programs for public and Catholic school educators. As to your comment that Dr. Darder is “the only social justice professor still at Loyola Marymount,” that doesn’t sound correct; but I will grant that I’m still scratching my head about the existence of the above named academy on that campus.
LikeLike