Archives for category: Los Angeles

Sorry for the typo in the headline. I have been writing and editing all day and my eyes are weary.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Anna Bakalis, 213-305-9654
Kim Turner, 213-305-9316

UTLA announces January 14 strike date

While we believe we would eventually win in court against all of Austin Beutner’s anti-union, high-priced attempts to stop our legal right to strike, in order for clarity and to allow members, parents, and our communities to plan, UTLA is moving the strike date to Monday, January 14.

“Unlike Beutner and his administration, we do not want to bring confusion and chaos into an already fluid situation,” said UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl. “Although we believe we would ultimately prevail in court, for our members, our students, parents, and the community, absent an agreement we will plan to strike on Monday.”

As the UTLA bargaining team is back at the table to try to reach an agreement today, our lawyers are fighting Beutner’s desperate legal maneuvers in court. We need to be the ones to offer clarity, since the district has sent out confusing, contradicting messages to members and parents in the last few months.

We know there are tough decisions ahead for the more than 600,000 students and their families impacted by a strike. While every family will make their own decision on whether to send their child to school in the event of a strike, having many parents and allies on picket lines will be powerful and transformative.

UTLA will hold a Facebook live press briefing with Alex Caputo-Pearl, after negotiations, around 5 p.m.

This just in from the UTLA:

OR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contacts:
Anna Bakalis, 213-305-9654
Kim Turner, 213-305-9316

No progress made in bargaining today

LOS ANGELES — UTLA met with LAUSD officials today in the hopes that the district would finally have a meaningful proposal to settle the contract, but the district made yet another unacceptable offer. LAUSD’s latest proposal ties a pay raise to cuts in healthcare for future employees, would actually increase class size instead of lower it, and does nothing to bring more long-term nurses, counselors, and librarians to work with our students.

It’s clear we are still deadlocked over the issues and an impasse between the two parties still exists. Tomorrow, we are in court to fight another anti-union attempt to stop our strike by LAUSD. We have agreed to meet with LAUSD on Wednesday at 9 AM, and we hope that the district brings a real proposal that genuinely supports our educators, students, and communities.

For UTLA’s part, today we pulled six issues from our bargaining package that the district says are “permissive” and claims we are not able to strike over—including important proposals to reduce overtesting and give parents and teachers more decision making at schools. We are disappointed that once again the district is putting up roadblocks to cost-neutral efforts to improve our students’ learning conditions. This is another last-minute, high-priced-lawyer maneuver by LAUSD Superintendent Austin Beutner. We disagree that these issues are “permissive” and are going to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to fight for our right to bargain over them, but for now, to protect our right to strike, we have withdrawn them.

“Austin Beutner once again reveals his disdain for the educators and parents of LAUSD by fighting tooth and nail against proposals to give parents and teachers a greater voice in how their schools are run,” UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl says. “These proposals have wide community support and would not have cost the district a dime.”

Meanwhile, our members were asked to send home Beutner’s letter to students today that claimed UTLA refused to bargain—this while our team was actually at the table with LAUSD. He claims LAUSD is broke, yet he is spending money on hundreds of thousands of letters with inaccurate and false information and dares to ask our members (98% of whom voted to strike) to distribute the letter. Beutner did this after telling teachers we can’t talk to parents, which is the subject of a pending unfair bargaining charge.

UTLA is planning to be in court tomorrow to fight another attempt by Austin Beutner to stop our potential strike. Last week, the federal court threw out Beutner’s attempt at an offensive special education injunction to stop a strike, and we expect PERB to dismiss his request for another injunction based on unsubstantiated bad faith bargaining claims in the next few days. This third attempt at an injunction is based on a disingenuous claim that UTLA did not give sufficient notice of our intent to strike.

We are fighting to keep our strike date of January 10 but we are ready to shift to Monday, January 14, if LAUSD’s pursuit of this technicality is allowed to stand. We wish Beunter would spend as much energy trying to reach an agreement as he does employing his high-priced lawyers to try to thwart our right to advocate for our students and strike if it comes to that.

Alex Caputo-Pearl is president of the United Teachers of Los Angeles. He explains why teachers may strike.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-caputo-pearl-teachers-strike-20190106-story.html

He writes:

Teachers in Los Angeles may be forced to strike on Jan. 10.

The Los Angeles Unified School District has a record-breaking reserve of nearly $2 billion that should be spent on its resource-starved students. Yet Supt. Austin Beutner, a multimillionaire with experience in corporate downsizing but none in education, argues that the reserve is already accounted for in future spending, and that cuts should be made. He simultaneously refuses to talk about charter school regulations, calling the issue a “shiny ball” that distracts from the real issues.

District officials have cast the impasse as a funding problem. But at its heart, the standoff between L.A. Unified and United Teachers Los Angeles is a struggle over the future of public education.

Consider the conditions within the district. Class sizes often exceed 45 students in secondary schools; 35 students in upper elementary grades; and 25 students in lower elementary grades.

The district does not have nearly enough counselors, psychologists or librarians to give students the support they need, and 80% of schools don’t even have full-time nurses. Unnecessary standardized testing is pushing the arts and ethnic studies out of the curriculum.

Parents have little say over how funding is spent at their schools. Charter schools, which are operated mostly by corporate chains, have expanded by 287% over the last 10 years, draining more than $600 million from non-charter schools every year. Salaries for educators are low compared to surrounding districts, a significant disadvantage as L.A. Unified tries to recruit and retain teachers during a national shortage.

With the vast majority of our students coming from low-income neighborhoods of color, there is no way to describe the persistence of such conditions other than racial discrimination.
Working together with parents, the teachers union has put forward proposals to address many of these issues. Over 20 months of negotiations, the district has responded with inadequate counter-proposals.

Meanwhile, Beutner has moved ahead with what we believe is his agenda to dismantle the district. Through an outside foundation, he has brought on firms that have led public school closures and charter expansion in some districts where they have worked, from New Orleans to Washington, D.C. This approach, drawn from Wall Street, is called the “portfolio” model, and it has been criticized for having a negative effect on student equity and parent inclusion.

It is for many of these reasons that 98% of L.A. Unified’s educators voted to authorize a strike. Parents are actively supporting the teachers. There were many parents among the estimated 50,000 people who attended the UTLA March for Public Education on Dec. 15.
Beutner has attempted to narrow the issues mainly to salary. Educators will not be bought off. We need a host of improvements for our students.

Beutner has also said that the district doesn’t have reserves that will last longer than two to three years. The reality is that L.A. Unified had a reserve of $1.86 billion at the end of the 2017-18 school year. Its latest budget documents show the reserve growing to $1.97 billion in the 2018-19 school year.
The district warns about a fiscal cliff, but its warnings ring hollow. Three years ago, district officials projected that the 2017-18 reserve would be $105 million. They were off by more than $1.7 billion.

L.A. Unified has also overestimated its spending on books and other supplies over the last five years to the tune of hundreds of millions, meaning more money is available. The district has also failed to collect the full amounts owed by charters that are located on its campuses.

My colleagues and I agree with Beutner on at least one thing: The real long-term solution is for Sacramento to increase statewide school funding. It is downright shameful that the richest state in the country ranks 43rd out of 50 when it comes to per-pupil spending.

We have been working to change this. Beutner should help by supporting legislation to close the carried interest loophole, which has allowed hedge fund managers to inappropriately classify income as capital gains. This could bring hundreds of millions to schools annually.

He should also build support among the wealthy for Schools and Communities First, which closes the corporate loophole in Proposition 13 and could bring up to $5 billion in new annual funding to public schools. This is on the 2020 ballot.

United Teachers Los Angeles’ struggle for a fair contract is just one part of a broader movement for students, families and schools. We will engage in whatever talks are possible before Jan. 10 to avert a strike. But for talks to be successful, the district needs to commit to improve public schools.

I have taught in Compton and at Crenshaw High School. I have been in my own children’s classrooms. And I have visited hundreds of other schools. There is wonderful promise in the students at all of our schools. But although they are surrounded by wealth, students across the city are not getting what they deserve

Enough is enough. Invest in our students now.

Glenn Sacks, a social studies teacher in Los Angeles, reports that the neutral fact-finders validated most of UTLA’s criticisms of LAUSD.

He says that the time to strike grows near, unless LAUSD changes its positions on critical issues affecting students and classrooms.

He writes:

In the last step before United Teachers of Los Angeles could legally strike against the Los Angeles Unified School District, the California Public Employment Relations Board heard both parties and issued its recommendations for a settlement. While one wouldn’t know it from LAUSD’s statements, taken as a whole the report largely amounts to a lawyers’ brief in favor of UTLA’s positions.

LAUSD triumphantly announced that the report “is consistent with” its September offer to UTLA. Yet the only major area of factfinder agreement LAUSD cites is its offer of a 6 percent raise over a three-year contract. The district only made this offer after 17 months of negotiations–originally teachers were not offered any raise at all.

By contrast, on issue after issue, Arbitrator David A. Weinberg, the Neutral Chair of the fact-finding panel, came down on the side of UTLA.

One of LAUSD’s most egregious practices is its repeated scrapping of contractually-agreed to class size limits. Section 1.5 of the contract allows the district to set aside these limits during a financial crisis. The district abuses this provision by claiming a dubious crisis to invoke 1.5 on an almost annual basis. This wounds children by ripping away dedicated teachers with whom they’ve built important bonds. It also raises class sizes.

UTLA prioritized eliminating this harmful clause, and Weinberg endorsed this. He added, “I agree with the Union argument that lower class sizes are one of the best predictors of successful teaching and student success.”

LAUSD’s salary offer mandates that teachers do an additional 12 hours of professional development. Weinberg agreed with UTLA that this requirement should be dropped.

While LAUSD often claims its teachers receive generous pay and benefits, Weinberg wrote “I agree with the Union’s argument that the bargaining unit deserves to be higher ranked in comparison to other jurisdictions given the combination of a higher cost of living in the LA metro area, and the difficulty in teaching a population of students with so many needs and challenges.”

There is an open seat on the Los Angeles school board, because convicted felon Ref Rodriguez stepped down. He was a darling of the charter billionaires, who spent lavishly to elect him. He founded a charter chain. The leading candidate for his seat is Jackie Goldberg, a dynamic and articulate voice for public schools, where she wasa teacher, then became a board member and a state legislator.

The charter lobby has decided not to endorse in the March primary, but will probably throw their weight and dollars into a runoff to beat Jackie, if there is one.

Jackie Goldberg needs to win a majority of the votes to avoid a runoff. She is uniquely qualified. Even with her vote, the billionaires will have a majority, but only by one vote, not two. And she has a powerful voice, which would change the tenor of the board and keep Austin Beutner on the hot seat.

Recent races for the Los Angeles Board of Education have been the most expensive school board contests in the nation’s history — and charter school supporters spent millions more than anyone else. But a key charter group announced Friday it will sit out a March special election to fill an empty and potentially pivotal seat.

The political arm of the California Charter Schools Assn. is not endorsing any of the 10 candidates for the seat left vacant in July, when Ref Rodriguez resigned after pleading guilty to one felony and three misdemeanors for campaign fundraising violations.

The hopefuls are vying to represent the oddly shaped District 5, which covers some neighborhoods north of downtown L.A. as well as the cities of southeast Los Angeles County. The Board of Education, currently with six members, is split on key issues, including how to interact with privately operated charter schools, which compete with district-operated schools for students.

A spokeswoman for the charter group spoke of the many strong options for the board seat.
“There are a number of highly qualified, inspiring candidates in this race,” said Brittany Chord Parmley of CCSA Advocates. “Given the diversity, strength and depth of the field, we have decided not to endorse. … This election is an opportunity for the entire community to engage in a dialogue about what it will take to provide an outstanding public education to all Los Angeles students.”
Close observers have described this race as especially tricky for the charter group. District 5’s boundaries were carved to elect a Latino. And in the previous election, charter backers had a strong Latino candidate in Rodriguez, the co-founder of a charter-school organization.

One obvious option, charter group executive Allison Greenwood Bajracharya, is not a Latina. Nor is Heather Repenning, a city commissioner backed by Mayor Eric Garcetti, another power player. Nor is Jackie Goldberg, the pick of the teachers union, which has been the second-biggest spender in board races and has called for halting the growth of charter schools.

Backing a Latino in this district has mattered to United Teachers Los Angeles in the past, but after recent elections losses, union leaders think they have a winner in Goldberg, who has alliances within the Latino community. Goldberg previously served on the school board and the L.A. City Council as well as in the state Legislature. A wildcard for UTLA is the effect of a teachers strike planned for Jan. 10, which could work for or against the union’s endorsed candidate.

The ideal candidate in this race would be a Latina, according to some consultants.

Three Latinos in the race would be hard sells for charter supporters: School counselor Graciela Ortiz is active in UTLA. Cynthia Gonzalez works as a principal at a district-run school. Activist Rocio Rivas led protests calling for Rodriguez to resign.

The other Latino candidates are: Salvador “Chamba” Sanchez, a community college instructor; David Valdez, an L.A. County arts commissioner; Nestor Enrique Valencia, a Bell City Council member; and Ana Cubas, a community college instructor and former L.A. City Council aide who ran unsuccessfully for the council in 2013.

For the charter group, no one stood out.

Four of the Latino candidates banded together to urge UTLA and the charter group to endorse one or more Latinos.

“As the ‘Charter School vs. Public School’ debate rages on and political heavyweights attempt to bully their way into installing their own,” Cubas, Sanchez, Valencia and Gonzalez said in a joint statement, “this is a familiar scenario for the Latino candidates in this race. The district has long left its Latino students behind in academic achievement and access to public education.”

Other candidates, including a couple who dropped out of the race, originally endorsed the one-and-a-half-page statement, but disagreements developed among the group.

The charter group’s neutral stance may not carry over to a likely May runoff between the top two primary finishers, regardless of their ethnicity.

“It is naive to think this is a retreat or respite on their part,” said Juan Flecha, president of the union that represents school administrators. His union, which lacks big-money resources, has endorsed both Goldberg and Gonzalez.

Even in the primary, a pro-charter mega-donor could step in to fund a campaign. That could work better for charter supporters because the official charter group has the baggage of past ties to Rodriguez, said one political consultant, who requested anonymity because of connections to more than one candidate.

Another consultant, Mike Trujillo, who has worked mostly against UTLA-backed candidates, agreed: “It only takes some limited paperwork and a check to become a player in the primary.”

But it might make sense, he said, for the charter group to bide its time while teachers union president Alex Caputo-Pearl spends a lot on the teachers strike and on Goldberg in the primary.
“I suspect CCSA is gonna just get out of Alex’s way and let him spend away,” Trujillo said.

The following appeared in the UTLA newspaper.

UTLA retirees: Adopt a School for possible strike

UTLA-R members and members of other unions are encouraged to sign up for the Adopt a School program to support a possible strike at the site level.

Here’s how the program would work: Now that active members of UTLA authorized a strike, the retiree would reach out to the chapter chair at the adopted site to offer any assistance needed to prepare for and support the strike. The retiree would leave contact in- formation with the chapter chair and be ready to help as directed with any of the below:

• organizing (families and communi- ty) with phone calls, meetings, window posters, etc.

• talking with UTLA members about other job actions you participated in and lessons learned.

• reaching out for logistics for the strike days (water, food, facilities, security, sign- ins, posters) and whatever comes up that the chapter chair needs.

• being on the line and bringing others with you.

More than 100 UTLA-R members already have signed up to volunteer to assist chapter chairs at sites that were their alma mater, that are in their neighborhood, or that they worked at or sent their child to.

To sign up: Send your full name, union/ local (or UTLA-R), email, phone, school you’d like to adopt, and UTLA Area (if known) to Evy Vaughn at evaughn@utla. net. Please also include your connection to the school (e.g., the site is your alma ma- ter, your neighborhood school, a site you worked at or sent a child/grandchild to).

Parents are preparing for the teachers’ strike on January 10 by creating a FB page to support their teachers.

Parent Jenna Schwartz started a FB Page called “Parents Supporting Teachers.”

If you live in LA, join them.

Los Angeles is about to try to prove that class size doesn’t matter. The district, on orders from investment banker Austin Beutner, has hired about 400 substitutes to fill in for thousands of teachers who are preparing to strike on January 10. Let’s see: 400 teachers for 600,000 students. Those are very large classes!

As leaders of Los Angeles Unified School District and United Teachers Los Angeles remain locked in an impasse over a new contract, the district has hired hundreds of substitute staffers to replace picketing educators in the event of a potential strike come Jan. 10. But the move has sparked outrage from the union.

The districts’ preliminary move, alongside the union’s strike preparations, is a sign of the increasing likelihood of a strike that would be LAUSD’s first since 1989 and stands to impact the daily operations of hundreds of schools in the country’s second largest district.

LA Unified Superintendent Austin Beutner said Thursday that the district remains “at the bargaining table” but is actively preparing for teachers’ absence by hiring approximately 400 substitute teachers and fallback instruction for students.

“We have hired substitutes, we have made plans as to alternate curriculums for days that there is a strike but our goal is to make sure schools are safe and open so kids continue to learn,” Beutner said on Thursday. “My concern first and foremost is the safety and well being of our students.”

The move to hire replacement staff drew a sharp rebuke from the union over the last two days.

“It is outrageously irresponsible for Supt. Austin Beutner to force this strike when the district holds $1.9 billion in reserves and it is even more irresponsible to think that 400 substitutes can educate more than 600,000 students,” UTLA said in a statement Friday. “We believe that it is illegal for the district to hire people outside our bargaining unit to teach in LAUSD classrooms.”

Studies like those by Gordon Lafer have demonstrated the high cost that charters impose on public schools, which are left with stranded costs when students leave. The history of school segregation in the South has demonstrated the wastefulness of maintains a dual school system with both receiving public funds. Now charters are an issue in Los Angeles, where the funders use them to eliminate the teachers’ union.

Howard Blume writes in the Los Angeles Times:

In its 69 pages of demands to the school district, the union representing Los Angeles teachers barely touches on charter schools. But as they prepare for an announced strike on Jan. 10, union leaders are making the growth of these schools a focus to rally members and raise public awareness of what they see as an existential threat.

On Friday union President Alex Caputo-Pearl called for a halt to new charter schools in the district. It’s the latest escalation in the union’s anti-charter rhetoric.

“It’s time to invest in our existing schools,” said Caputo-Pearl, who heads United Teachers Los Angeles. “This unregulated growth is something that affects the long-term sustainability of the district. … This is about protecting the civic institution of public education.”

Charter supporters take issue with the union’s targeting. They say charters have provided valuable educational choices and have proved popular with parents.

L.A. schools Supt. Austin Beutner on Friday said it was wrong to characterize the dispute “as a referendum on charter schools.”

In an interview on Spectrum News, a cable channel, Beutner said “all schools should be looked at with the same tough set of standards.” For the teachers union, he said, “the difference is charter schools don’t have UTLA members, traditional public schools do.”

About 1 in 5 Los Angeles public school students now attends a charter. L.A. has more charters and more charter students than any other school system in the country. This growth has been substantially fueled by federal grants and donors, who include conservative and anti-union forces as well as some independents and Democrats.

Charters are privately managed and while most are nonunion, Caputo-Pearl said that his union represents about 1,000 charter-school teachers and that existing charters that are struggling with enrollment also are being hurt by the “grow at any cost” strategy of some charter advocates.
UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl calls for a cap on charter schools.

He also noted that because funding follows the student, charter expansion has drained funds from L.A. Unified, which also is losing enrollment based on unrelated demographic trends.

Fewer students means fewer teachers. And while a drop in enrollment should lower district expenses, the district has had a hard time shrinking and also is burdened with fixed costs for such things as school maintenance and retiree health benefits.

Union leaders “reason that the dramatic expansion of charter schools in Los Angeles over the last decade — an expansion fueled by funding from [Eli] Broad, the Walton Family Foundation and the Gates Foundation — has heightened instability and undermined the capacity of the system as a whole,” said UCLA education professor John Rogers. “UTLA leadership envisions creating a new reality on the ground that will change the dynamics of education in Los Angeles.”

The district also has a new reality in mind — a still mostly confidential plan to divide the nation’s second-largest school system into about 32 networks. The limited disclosure has exacerbated union fears about the goals of Beutner, a successful businessman without a background in working for or managing a school district.

While Beutner has called for a coming together with teachers, he’s also made comments that increase their anxiety.

“So [if] it’s the flexibility of charter schools that’s allowing them to excel, let’s bring that flexibility into the traditional school classroom,” he said in the TV interview on Friday.

But charter school growth and reorganization plans are not part of contract talks.

In its proposal to the district, the union devotes one page to charters — specifically to what happens when a charter shares a campus with a district-operated school.

These sharing arrangements, called colocations, are required by state law. But they frequently led to disputes over space as well as to protests against a charter’s presence.

The union proposal calls for notice by Nov. 15 of the preceding school year when a charter applies for space. UTLA also wants to establish a colocation coordinator who would get a $2,000 stipend and be involved in all discussions regarding logistics. In addition, the union wants an advisory panel at each affected campus that includes teachers, parents, the plant manager and the principal of the traditional school.

They are the union’s response to complaints from staff at traditional schools, which have had to surrender space set aside for computer rooms, tutoring and extracurricular programs.

L.A. Unified has opposed the union’s colocation proposals without much explanation. But there could be concerns about creating a new, potentially cumbersome bureaucratic layer or about letting the union interfere in district administrative decisions. That’s an issue the district has raised about many of the union demands.

Some district officials, notably school board member Nick Melvoin, have sought to ease tensions over campus sharing by sponsoring something very close to group therapy. Using donated funds, Melvoin organized a summer retreat at a local resort hotel that brought leaders of charters and district-operated schools together to get to know each other and talk.

To be sure, many union activists don’t particularly want to get along with charters. They see the charter incursion as too much of a threat.

A strike, if it happens, won’t be over a charter moratorium. But by bringing up the issue now, the union is taking advantage of the sudden spotlight turned on by the strike threat.

The strike “won’t directly settle any of the underlying issues,” said Charles Kerchner, a scholar on labor relations and a professor emeritus and the Claremont Graduate University. “Hence, the charter school wars will continue.”

Los Angeles high school teacher Glenn Sacks explains why it is important to reduce class sizes and why studies that say otherwise are misleading.

He writes:


As a January teachers’ strike looms, 50,000 teachers, parents, and students marched at a United Teachers of Los Angeles’ demonstration Saturday, demanding that LAUSD address students’ needs. UTLA’s central demand is that LAUSD reduce class sizes. At my high school, for example, we have over 30 academic classes with 41 or more students, including nine English/writing classes as many as 49 students, and three AP classes with 46 or more students. Yet some of UTLA’s opponents assert that class size doesn’t matter, citing studies that did not find a link between class sizes and educational performance.

These studies are significantly flawed. Economist Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach of Northwestern University, a prominent educational scholar, explains:

“The academic research has many examples of poor-quality studies…perhaps the most common misinterpretation is caused by low-achieving or special needs students being systematically assigned to smaller classes. In these cases, a simple correlation would find class size is negatively associated with achievement, but such a finding could not be validly generalized to conclude that class size does not matter or that smaller classes are harmful.”

For example, the current LAUSD norm for Special Education Mild to Moderate classes is 12-14 students. These students take the same standardized tests (albeit sometimes with minor modifications) as General Education students do. To include the small class sizes and low academic performance of these classes to judge the effect of small class sizes on overall student performance is beyond absurd.

Of particular relevance to LAUSD is Schanzenbach’s finding that smaller classes are particularly effective at raising achievement levels of low-income and minority children, and that these students are the ones most harmed by class size increases. Of LAUSD’s student population, 76 percent live in poverty, and 90 percent are minority.

She concludes, “Class size matters. Research supports the common-sense notion that children learn more and teachers are more effective in smaller classes.”

Critics like to cite student-to-teacher ratios—numbers which generally sound reasonable–to make UTLA sound unreasonable. Yet these ratios count special education and other specialized teachers who normally have much smaller classes than regular classroom teachers do. Class sizes are significantly larger than standard student-teacher ratios indicate.

It makes a big difference whether a teacher’s weekly grading ritual involves grading 180 students’ essays and tests or only 125. The extra time it takes to grade those is directly taken away from our students. Every teacher has a long list of things they’d love to do better or more often for their students, if they only had the time. My list includes:

• Call in the disengaged, failing kid sitting in back—the one researchers say is often hit the hardest by large class sizes—and discuss (and then implement) a plan to get them interested in the class.

• Every class has someone like my government student Jonathan, who participates in class with gusto but routinely underperforms on tests. One solution is an oral exam. It’s a legitimate test—if Jonathan doesn’t know his stuff, there’s no way he could hide it from me.

• Students often send me video clips, songs, memes, and articles related to something we’ve studied. When a student connects a lesson to something that they’ve taken note of in current politics, it fuels their motivation and interest. I try to review and (when appropriate) incorporate them into upcoming lessons.

• Going to their athletic or academic events. Students often ask—they like their teachers to see what they’re doing, and it helps teachers build bonds with their students.

• As I grade tests, look for students who have been struggling but who did well, and text their parents the good news. It’s nice to hear a student say, “Thanks for that. It made my mom happy.” It’s also important to share the positives with parents, as opposed to communicating only when there’s trouble.

All of these things take time. The time that excessive class sizes cost us can turn a great teacher into a good one, a good one into an average one, an average one into a struggling one, and a struggling one into an ineffective one.

LAUSD’s own figures show they could reduce class sizes to pre-2008 levels for $200 million — only 10 percent of their current reserve. There’s much debate by educational researchers about various ways to improve our educational system. But there’s no debate about class sizes. Lowering them would be the quickest, surest way LAUSD could help our students.