In a changing of the regime, the leadership of the Los Angeles school board changed hands.
Six-term president Monica Garcia is out.
Dr. Richard Vladovic was elected as president, with Steve Zimmer as vice-president.
Garcia was a close ally of Mayor Villaraigosa.
At Superintendent John Deasy’s urging, the Los Angeles school board last spring voted to restructure Crenshaw High because of its low test scores.
The school will be divided into magnets.
All of the staff had to reapply for their jobs.
Curiously, the veteran teachers who were most outspoken in their criticism of the restructuring were not rehired.
A reader from Los Angeles raises questions about Dr. Deasy’s credentials and his backers. I cannot verify all his claims but could verify this and thisand this:
The reader writes:
“In Los Angeles, “Dr.” (a term L.A. teachers sneer at) John Deasy got his PhD from the University of Louisville after six months attendance and nine units of coursework from a “Professor” (another loose term) Felner whom Deasy had previously awarded $375,000 in consulting contracts while Superintendent of Santa Monica. Felner later received a vote of no confidence first from the University and then the U.S. Justice Department which sentenced him to five years in federal prison for defrauding the US Government and urban school districts of $2.3 million. Deasy lied on his resume, claiming to have taught at Loyola and was “installed” by Eli Broad (he’s a Broad Graduate), Bill Gates, and Mayor Villariagosa. Not only did LAUSD not conduct a national search, they didn’t even interview him. When I say “installed,” I mean, “INSTALLED!” He is now busy wrecking the careers of hundreds, soon to be thousands of dedicated teaching professionals using false allegations, many related to child abuse. Does anyone truly believe we suddenly have thousands of child-abusing teachers in L.A., or has an unqualified, vindictive, malicious Superintendent launched an unprecedented McCarthyistic witch hunt against primarily senior teachers to cover his own behind for mishandling other legitimate sex scandals (including a previous Superintendent’s) and solve his budget problems by riding himself of highly skilled (relatively expensive) veteran teachers while simultaneously robbing them of district-paid lifetime retirement health benefits –a quarter of a million dollars or more these veterans have spent decades earning while serving to LAUSD students?”
Six months and nine units got Deasy a PhD. Oh and by the way, his dissertation is dated months before he even enrolled at Louisville. How many ways can you spell “Quid Pro Quo?” What is the plural? Is it “Quids,” “Pros,” or “Quos”? All three? It can’t be “Pros.” Deasy is anything but a “pro.”
Deasy is literally skinning teachers alive with false allegations. And after paying accused child molester Mark Brendt $40,000 to resign, he did not notify the State’s Teacher Credential Commission for more than a year, the penalty for which is the revocation of your (meaning Deasy’s) administrative credential. Why does a man who admittedly broke the law still have an administrative credential? Why is he still an administrator? Why is his butchering of teachers being allowed to continue? Two reasons. The first is “Eli” and the second is “Broad.”
This is a strange but true story.
As you know, I have a new book coming out in mid-September, and I plan to visit several cities on the west coast.
A reader of the blog reached out to see if the Los Angeles World Affairs Council would host me to speak at a luncheon.
I will be in Los Angeles October 1 and 2. I am speaking at Cal State-Northridge on the evening of October 2. So I thought it would be a good idea to speak to LAWAC at lunch on October 2 or in the evening of October 1.
LAWAC has previously hosted Michelle Rhee, who was introduced by Eli Broad, the billionaire philanthropist.
The initial response from LAWAC was that it would be delighted to present me, that its members are very interested in education issues, and that we could work out the details.
I conveyed this information to my lecture agent, who is coordinating my travel arrangements. She asked for a fee, as is customary (I don’t know what she asked for). The response came back that LAWAC does not pay speaker fees.
I responded immediately, directly to the executive director of LAWAC and wrote that I would gladly speak for free. He replied that LAWAC does not pay speakers’ fees.
I thought maybe he missed my previous email, so I wrote again and said, clearly and in caps, I will speak for FREE, I require no fee, nothing at all, not even expenses. I am willing to speak for no fee. No fee, no fee, no fee. Do I make myself clear? No fee. Free.
Again came back the response. “LAWAC does not pay speakers’ fees.”
I think the message is: LAWAC does not want to hear anyone who disagrees with Michelle Rhee and Eli Broad. Or maybe LAWAC is no longer interested in hearing about education as it is no longer an important issue. But it cannot be about fees.
What do you think?
Something unusual happened at the most recent Los Angeles school board meeting. Even before newly elected Monica Ratliff was sworn in, the pro-privatization majority was in retreat.
Here is a fascinating account of the background and context:
So glad you are reporting this. I only wish that Zimmer had gone ever further on the class size issue and had reminded everyone that LAUSD has the largest numbers of charter schools. Every time a start up charter or independent conversion charter gets approved, money gets taken out of LAUSD’s budget. This has been brought up time after time, and even the budget director mentioned it at a recent meeting. So, it begs the question as to who Galatzan and Garcia are really supporting? Who is more important to them, charter schools or the vast majority of students in traditional schools?
I think the answer is obvious. After all, where does the big money come from when it comes time to collect campaign funds? The list of funders from Garcia’s recent board race reads like a who’s-who list of charter friendly corporations and charter operators.
Below is a paragraph from a recent IG report on how special education funding is negatively impacting LAUSD and thus contributing to class size increases. This happens because charter schools have a much lower percentage of special ed students and for those they do enroll, most have the least severe disabilities.
Click to access 13497FUNDINGSPECIAL%20EDUCATION%20PROGRAM.PDF
“An increasing number of charter schools is eroding the District’s ADA base for special education funding. The California funding system for special education is based on Census-Based funding model that funds special education programs based on school’s Average Daily Attendance (ADA) numbers. The establishment of charter schools takes away ADA numbers from the District resulting in less funding for the District’s special education program.”
Another item not discussed anywhere was the denial of a charter school.
From the LA Times:
“The board also voted to reject a bid from an independently operated charter school to remain open. Anahuacalmecac International University Preparatory High School had sought a second, five-year charter, as well as permission to expand to offer a kindergarten-through-12th-grade program.”
This charter has two schools. The last time one of their schools came up for renewal, denial was also recommended. But, Garcia convinced her buddies on the board to overturn the charter division’s recommendation. After the vote, she got out of her chair and went into the street to celebrate with the head of the school, leaving behind her duties and missing out on voting on other issues.
This time, things were different. While the school was allowed to present their reasons for overturning the denial, when the board was asked to vote, NONE of the board members said a word. There was NO discussion…..ZERO!!! The vote was taken immediately and it was 6-1 in support of the denial. Of course, Garcia voted to overturn.
I suspect that this silence was pre-determined decision by the board. Perhaps it was because of the horrific report from the Inspector General’s office:
Click to access 12492ACADEMIA%20SEMILLAS%20CHARTER%20SCHOOL.PDF
The report above clearly states that, when an audit was requested, the school repeatedly refused to turnover any records. Perhaps the head of the school felt he had Garcia’s back and that, like before, the board’s charter friendly majority would ignore this “minor” problem. But not this time. Perhaps the board did not want an open discussion during which it may have been revealed that the board has been complicit in rubber stamping a charter that so blatantly disregards the rules.
Bottom line….the charter friendly board members took a major hit on Tuesday. Actions and statements by Garcia and Galatzan received numerous negative responses from the audience. Most certainly, this was only a precursor of what is to come.
A reader who attended the recent Los Angeles school board meeting noticed the effort by a board member to prevent Warren Fletcher, president of the United Teachers of Los Angeles, from speaking. The sequence is fascinating and well worth reading (and watching).
If you really want to see, in action, Board Member Tamar Galatzan’s (and also Board Member Monica Garcia’s) animus towards teachers’ unions, go to:
lausd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=58
BACKGROUND: the rules and etiquette at LAUSD board meetings has always been to allow the UTLA President to speak on an issue without a speaker card, after the 7 public commenters have finished. Well, this precedent was almost broken at this meeting… almost.
Keep that in mind when you watch this at:
07:30:00
UTLA President Warren Fletcher, always eloquent, knowlegable, and articulate, approaches the mic to talk and Galatzan tries to silence him, and move on to the next phase where Board Members then comment.
Galatzan, who has taken over as presiding chair, is stopped by Fletcher, who asks for his customary time to speak. Incredibly, Galatzan snaps at him, “You do not have a speaker card.” (Mind you, he represents over 35,000 teachers and other educators)
Fletcher: “Excuse me. May I – ”
Galatzan: “Hold on one second. Hold on one second. Seven speakers… you do not have a speaker card.”
Fletcher: “Excuse me. I – ”
Galatzan looks away dismissively from Fletcher, and addresses the other Board members.
Galatzan: (turns away) “Okay, umm, thank you. Questions and comments?”
People in the crowd start shouting objections to Galatzan, and Galatzan responds with condescension.
Galatzan: “I’m sorry. The rules is that we have seven speakers. We’ve heard seven speakers.”
—(fixing her eyes on Fletcher)
“Now, we’re done with Public Comment period. There’s now – ”
The crowd then erupts with shouts “Let him speak!!!”
Galatzan: “There’s now time for the Board Members to comment if they should desire. Do any of my colleagues on the board have any questions of comments on Number 45?”
More objections shouted from the crowd.
Veteran Board member Margueritte Lamotte then chimes in an exasperated tone.
LaMotte: “Can we have not ask for permission for the president to speak?”
The crowd grows louder.
Galatzan: (irritatated, but gives in) “Oh. Go ahead.”
The crowd applauds.
Fletcher: “Thank you, Madame Chair.”
He then proceeds to give Zimmer a run for his money in the speech-making department. Fletcher doesn’t attack Parent Revolution, or anyone from Parent Revolution personally. Wisely, he attacks the law itself, saying correctly that “it guarantees bad outcomes.. ”
Fletcher continues: ” … because this law is built on the premise is that the only way that a school can be improved is when one group of stakeholders starts blaming another group of stakeholders. It is a law based on the idea that we can improve schools by scapegoating… and it is a law that is based on the belief that the only way we can have progress in a school community is if we divide the school in to ‘us’ and ‘them.’ As a 29-year teacher in this district, I can tell you that the parents in this district are being presented with a cruel hoax by this law.
“It is a mechanism to turn ‘hope’ into ‘hate’, and that law is a legal framework to set people against each other. I, as President of UTLA, am proud to say that we reach out to parents, and we set up meetings with parents, and as soon as Parent Trigger is mentioned, suddenly UTLA cannot even get a Civic Center permit. Suddenly, UTLA runs into legal obstacle after legal obstacle. What we are doing is playing ‘adult conflict games,’ and we are fiddling while Rome burns!
“It is important that this school board, and the senior administration and the superintendent of this district obey the law, but it is also important that a framework is developed like in Mr. Zimmer’s motion that this law does not sow hatred, and does not debilitate school communities. To this point, the senior leadership of this district has been, I think, unready to take on the fact that we in Los Angeles bringing groups together, bringing parents, teachers and students and the community and everyone together, and end this sowing of hate!”
… and on he goes.
Watch and listen to Fletcher passionately and brilliantly lay out the truth about this situation, and you’ll see why the corporate-funded, pro-privatization Galatzan fought so hard to keep him speaking.
Last night I blogged about the recent meeting of the LAUSD school board and pointed out Steve Zimmer’s eloquent defense of class size limits. The high point of his six-minute statement was when he compared the class sizes in L.A. public schools–40 or more–with the class sizes in local charter schools, which boast of 20 or so. He did it dramatically, reading out the names of each charter and their class sizes, then tossing the piece of paper over his shoulder.
A reader who attended the meeting added the context of Zimmer’s comments and the reaction of some fellow board members:
Zimmer’s real Al Pacino-esque moment—I’m thinking of Pacino in SCENT OF A WOMAN and AND JUSTICE FOR ALL and other movies where he cuts loose with an monologue of outrage—is when he starts quoting the student-to-teacher ratios at the local charter schools… and one private school (“the elite of the elite… has a 12-to-1 ration. 12-to-1!”
Go to the video:
http://lausd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=58
Then jog to:
05:39:10
and watch until Zimmer hits his stride and lets it rip at:
05:40:10
With mounting irritation, Zimmer starts shouting—quoting and throwing the paper printouts from the charters websites wildly over his shoulder (where the charters’ websites’ main page touts and specifically cites their exact student-to-teacher ratios.)
This was breathtaking.
You can’t see this because of the camera angle, but Board Member Galatzan was visibly angry at this point.
A little subtext here.
Both Galatzan and Monica Garcia have strongly backed the private charters in general—and the ones mentioned by Zimmer in particular, while at the same time, lambasting teachers in the traditional public schools and those teachers’ union, UTLA for doing a lousy job, and “obstructing reform” and being “defenders of a failed status quo,” and on and on… (In the process, Galatzan and Garcia are parroting the talking points of the “reform” organizations who pumped millions into their campaigns… but that’s another story).
In 2009, Galatzan and Garcia also voted to raise class size in the traditional public schools—and saying nothing about the ratios at their beloved charter schools. While the state budget was a contributing factor to the vote, Galatzan and Garcia also cited in part the following reasons for raising the class size in the traditional public schools:
1) “Lowering class size is just about teachers
unions wanting more members and more dues,
and more power… with no proof that it helps kids.”
2) “Lowering class size is about advancing adult interests
at the expense of children’s interests.”
3) “Lowering class size is just so teachers, who have
it easy enough already, will have it even easier, with less
work required from less students.”
Zimmer makes brief reference to these objections…
” to those who think that (lowering) class size is solely
about jobs.. ”
For Galatzan and Garcia, they take a seemingly contradictory (hypocritical?) stance on this, as again, they bend over backwards supporting and praising the charter schools whose success is in part due to their low class size—the low class size the charters tout on their websites.
Anyway, back to the video.
Galatzan starts picking up the papers that Zimmer flings indiscriminately over his head and slapping them down angrily on the counter, and says to him, “Are you gonna clean this up?”
Not flinching a bit, Zimmer continues his laser-like focus, not even looking sideways at Galatzan as he snaps, “I’ll clean it up!” as if to say, “Don’t butt in.. I’m on a roll here.”
Again… a breathtaking performance.
Steve Zimmer, the school board member who beat back a multi-million dollar campaign to defeat him just a few months ago, spoke to his fellow members of the Los Angeles school board at their meeting yesterday.
He talked about the importance of class size. He demolished the claim that teachers want to reduce class size for their own benefit. He explained patiently and eloquently why class size matters.
This is the full hearing.
This is testimony delivered by a parent to the Los Angeles school board, as they debated whether to create new rules governing the “parent trigger” takeover process. She asked the school board to guarantee a fair process that protects parents against manipulation and exploitation.
This is what she said:
Hello,
My name is Raquel Cedillo and I am a parent of 3 students currently enrolled at Haddon Elementary. I am here to ask that you please set forth guidelines in regards to the Parent Trigger Law and how organizations such as Parent Revolution collect signatures.
At Haddon Elementary, parents have been misled and lied to. Representatives from the parent union went door to door asking parents to sign their petition. Parents were told it was to better the school and every student would get a lap top. Parents were also told that all the teachers and the principal were supporting this change. I know this because this is what I was told when they came knocking on my door. They came three times in one week trying to convince my mother to get me to sign the petition. They were persistent. Is this how they obtained most of their signatures? Pressuring parents? Some parents did not realize by signing this petition, they were signing to change our school to a charter. Parents were not given all the facts!
At 24th street and Weigand Elementary, were parents given all the facts? Was there a public meeting informing all parents about the Parent Trigger law and what was happening at their school? The answer is NO. In Adelanto, Parent Revolution had two petitions circulating, one asking for school reform and another asking to change the school to Charter. Parents didn’t know which was going to be used until it was too late and the petition was submitted to the District. So basically, Parent Revolution is asking for parents to sign a blank check and cross their fingers and hope for the best….is that true parent empowerment? NO it’s not. Parents have the right to hear from both sides about what is going on, so they can get the facts and be able to make an educated choice, and parents need a public place in which to do this like at the school.
Parent Revolution has been involved in our school for over two and a half years. This is the longest by far a school has been involved in a parent trigger campaign. Adelanto, 24th Street and Weigand were changed rather quickly. I was once asked by David Goldberg, CTA Director, “What is the difference with Haddon?” Well the difference is Haddon’s parent involvement. Haddon has a core group of parents who have taken it upon themselves to inform parents about what is going on at our school. Parents have passed out fliers, talked with other parents and even had rallies to inform parents about these petitions and not to sign them before knowing all the facts. This is true parent empowerment Involving ALL parents in making choices pertaining to their children’s school.
Over the last two and a half years Haddon parents have had to put up with so much from Parent Revolution and its organizers. Haddon has two Parent Revolution organizers who attend almost every school meeting/function. These organizers are NOT parents or even community members. These organizers are the masters and Haddon’s parent union are the puppets. At these school meetings such as SSC or coffee with the principal, parent union parents do not ask questions or make any move without these two organizers telling them what to do or what to say. Some of these members of the parent union do not even have students who attend Haddon. So how are they a part of the parent union? Are these the same parents collecting signatures, under false representation as parents of Haddon? Who verifies how these signatures are collected? Who verifies what was said to parents while collecting signatures? Where were these signatures collected? Some parents informed me they were asked to sign a petition when leaving a grocery store, while walking through the neighborhood, on the school campus, in front of the school, or at church. Is this how Parent Revolution conducts business? Catching people off guard? Parents were not given all the facts when asked to sign these petitions. I have some parents who said they signed without really understanding what this petition really meant. There are parents who now want to rescind their signatures after getting all the facts and now understanding what this petition can do to their school. How is this process handled? Parents want to rescind their signatures before it’s too late. This didn’t have to happen if guidelines were set up and parents were informed from the start.
A recent article on June 3rd in the L.A. Times was titled the “Parent Trigger Trap.” This is exactly what it is- a trap!! Not all parents are being informed about what is happening at their children’s school. Parents are not given the facts from both sides before signing the petition. Also if parents sign the petition then they agree with changing the school. If parents don’t sign, when and if the school is changed , those parents no longer have a voice or vote . How is that parent empowerment? Parents are forced between a rock and a hard place. This also needs to be changed. Parents who don’t sign need to have a voice or vote about what happens at their child’s school. It’s like parents lose their rights if they don’t agree with the petition or Parent Revolution.
So as a parent I am asking that you, the school district, please implement rules and guidelines in which outside organizations such as Parent Revolution must follow when proceeding with a parent trigger campaign.
Thank you,
Raquel Cedillo
Los Angeles parent Karen Wolfe here recounts the hilarious showdown at the meeting of the LAUSD school board between real parents and the organizers from Parent Revolution.
The subject at issue was whether the board would assure an open, transparent, public process when some outside group (ahem) seeks to gather signatures to seize control of the school. That is, when someone decides to pull the “parent trigger” and fire it at staff or the school itself.
The outcome was great: The parents won.
More evidence that the public is awakening to defend public schools against disruption and privatization disguised as “reform.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 