In a stunning turn of events, the Los Angeles Unified School District board passed a resolution asking for a moratorium on new charter schools.
https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-lausd-teachers-contract-vote-20190128-story.html
This was part of the new contract with the UTLA, the United Teachers of LA, but many observers predicted that the board would never pass the resolution because four of its six members were elected by the charter lobby’s money.
Apparently the only no vote was cast by Nick Melvoin, whose campaign received more than $5 million from the charter advocates.
More than 1,000 charter students and parents massed outside the building to oppose the moratorium, although none of their schools would be affected by it. They were brought out by charter operators hoping to open more charters, even though 82% of current charters have vacancies, according to board member Scott Schmerelson.
The decision about a moratorium will be made by the legislature.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Great news for ending the intended monoply by charter schools.
“More than 1,000 charter students and parents massed outside the building to oppose the moratorium, although none of their schools would be affected by it. They were brought out by charter operators hoping to open more charters, even though 82% of current charters have vacancies, according to board member Scott Schmerelson.”
I saw this same tactic used to market a charter oper in Cincinnati. In this case, parents, students, and a few charter teachers came in from Tennessee hoping to sell the city on charters by amking a media splash.
LikeLike
It has always puzzled me why charter students and parents attend rallies for more charters. They are already in a charter school. Why demand more? How many can they attend?
LikeLike
It doesn’t puzzle me. It’s an ideology. Facts and empirical evidence don’t matter.
LikeLike
They are the cheering section. Every ‘game’ needs a cheering section.
LikeLike
These parents received perks. Free busride to Cincini, food, media play, tthen off to DC for a meetup with TFA. That’s the gist in this case. Details are burried somewhere in your blog.
LikeLike
Stunning indeed. Melovin at 5,769,988 reasons to vote no. Yet Gomez, Garcia, and Vladocic voted against the 5,091,739 reasons we were—wrongly—sure they would join him. The privatizers must be angry at themselves for not giving more. After all, it’s chump change for them.
Let’s see if this lasts. I’m skeptical, but hopeful. A good first step.
LikeLike
Spellcheck plus poor (nonexistent) proofreading got me again.
LikeLike
Amazing. Congratulations, UTLA.
Now legislators, do the same!
LikeLike
It would be interesting to find out what each of the board members thought. How they convinced themselves to vote yes.
LikeLike
It’s fair to ask how all this came about. There were many factors, for sure. First and foremost, it was the teacher strike that brought attention to the issue, finally. This caused a very difficult situation for the 4 board members who received campaign funding from the CA Charter School Association. Exactly why Dr. Vladovic pushed this resolution is not known, as he had changed from somewhat neutral positions to support of Beutner who he voted for. Vladovic is termed out, so he doesn’t have to worry about a future career, as he is well beyond retirement age from LAUSD. Gonez was stuck in the middle. She received a ton of money from CCSA, and was thus beholden to them. Many people felt she was manipulated and was not a true advocate of the reform agenda. So, it was not a surprise that she did not vote “NO”. However, the long amendment she proposed was her attempt to bridge the gap. It essentially would have created a local team to review charter policy which would include UTLA before taking any further action. When Vladovic was asked if he would accept this amendment as “friendly”, he practically blew up and said “NO”. His main point was that any local team would be subject to political pressure and that’s why he felt it was better for the state to handle it. So, when her amendment was voted on, it failed because it did not get the needed 4 votes. If Rodriguez was still on the board, it would have passed. So, then, Garcia, Gonez and Melvoin had to decide what to do when the original resolution was then voted on. These three have their future careers to think of. But, the political winds in this state are changing and with support for the teachers from L.A. Mayor Garcetti, Garcia and Gonez voted for the resolution. But Melvoin was a “NO”. My guess is that he is totally beholden to SPEAK UP, the group of westside moms who felt that Melvoin would protect “their” charter schools from “outsiders” and thus organized to get him elected. There is no way that he can now go against this group. And yes, they showed up at yesterday’s meeting with one mom holding a large stack of statements against the resolution.
It would be very interesting to find out how CCSA and all those charter schools that bussed their students and parents to the board meeting are feeling now. Garcia and Gonez sold them out, literally.
LikeLike
Thanks for the summary.
It’s easy enough to view Vladovic’s intention to send a resolution to the State as simply punting the issue. It dodges the whole mess on a local level, and it is not likely that the politicians in Sacramento will do anything with it.
Was the resolution proposed by Vladovic originally, or was it instigated by UTLA as part of negotiations? That’s the interesting question here.
Gonez’ response is entirely predictable and Garcia is likely attempting to straddle a political fence – she’s going to be running for City Council soon enough.
LikeLike
You know, Steve. You really need to read the contract and study the negotiations you have been so critical of. If you had you’d know this was a part of the UTLA negotiations – that you panned my reporting of as a useless waste of time.
LikeLike
I did read it, Carrie, and saw that the clause we’re discussing was the very first article in the agreement. However, Educator implies that Vladovic was the one championing it from the get-go…so I was wondering if it was inserted at his behest. I was attempting to get clarification from Educator.
Now that you’ve confirmed that your group instigated it I am more convinced that Vladovic is simply punting the issue.
My impression from reading the agreement, overall, is that it sold many of our members out (particularly Spec Ed) while increasing chapter chair oversight. I’ll get to the bottom of it over the next few weeks, when I have time to analyze the proposals that the bargaining team made over the last two years. The back and forth should show how much real movement occurred during the negotiations that the team [you included?] made during the strike.
Rank and file members will figure out what has been going on over the next year or two, as the leadership’s long term strategies play out. The strike was certainly used to produce gains within the region’s Latino political sphere; it’s evident that was purposeful…but an important question is when that shift in purpose took place?
LikeLike
From my conversations with union leaders and review of the agreement, Steve, I think your judgement might be too harsh. The union made no concessions. Class sizes will be reduced. The board’s ability to ignore class size caps was eliminated. The board committed to a full time minutes and librarian in every school. I don’t know any other labor contract where every concession came only from management.
LikeLike
Respectfully, Diane, there are so many issues at play that I couldn’t even address a fraction of them in any given response. Others need time to continue to mature.
UTLA went through a lot of turmoil in recent years, as different factions attempted to wrest control [I have never been interested in any of that and, frankly, have never been a terribly active member over my 26-year career.] That infighting caused the union to be rather weak and ineffectual, overall, necessitating that things be done. The strike was one, but others have never been addressed, such as generating detailed analyses of the District’s expenditures over the last ten years. Union leaders have never made that a priority when it always should have been.
I’ve always been a skeptic, so I’ll be looking at the details of the bargaining team’s efforts over the last couple of years to see how they jive with the final agreement. Likewise, I’ll be watching the political maneuvering that will inevitably take place within the region [from the sidelines, I’m not privvy to anyone’s plans.]
If the leadership’s lassoing/wrangling of the Latino political bloc eventually leads to the placement of rational, educator-friendly Board members over the next couple of years, I’ll have no end of praise for their current efforts.
If its wrangling leads to Ratliff-like results…well, I’ll know where to point fingers.
I have a lot of reading to do and work to make up, at the present, but I’ll get back to this subject and post more on it. As a (temporarily) final word, know that there is a tremendous amount of anger over the agreement/contract within UTLA’s ranks. Years of ineffectual leadership and limited communication with rank and file members tends to breed resentment.
LikeLike
Steve, whatever you think of the contract, it contains no concessions or givebacks. That’s amazing.
LikeLike
When you have to pay people to show up for support, I think you know how people feel about for profit charters
LikeLike