Archives for category: Los Angeles

Robert Skeels attended a “meet and greet” sponsored by pRev (the organization formerly known as Parent Revolution). Read what he learned as he socialized with those who are prepared to close down 50 public schools in Los Angeles. Why? Well, firing people makes better schools. Or does it?

Since she upset the heavily-funded favorite in the recent Los Angeles school board runoff, many eyes are on Monica Ratliff.

Some of her supporters were concerned when she appeared at an event where the Gates-funded Educators for Excellence presented a report on teacher evaluation. The event was attended by Superintendent John Deasy and school board president Monica Garcia, an ally of Deasy.

Immediately the tweets began to fly claiming that Ratliff supported paying teachers by student test scores. Some worried that she had crossed over to the side that opposed her in the election.

Whoa!

I wrote Monica Ratliff, we had a candid conversation, and Monica advised that we should judge her by her votes as a board member, not by tweets that did not come from her.

She wrote:

“Dear Diane,

“When I advocate for fixing the LAUSD teacher evaluation system and professional development system, I am NOT advocating that we link test scores to monetary gain for teachers or administrators.

“Across LA, there are public schools where scores have been rising over the years sans any monetary gain for teachers or administrators. If we link test scores to monetary gain, I have no doubt that we will see some increases in test scores but at what cost and by what means?

Sincerely,

Mónica Ratliff

Steve Zimmer proposed the following resolution to the Los Angeles Board of Education. His goal is to make sure that parents are fully informed and protected against stealth campaigns to trick parents into handing their school over to a charter operator or firing the staff.

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District
OPEN SESSION ITEMS

Board Resolutions For Initial Announcement

1. Mr. Zimmer – Comprehensive Information for Parent Initiated School Transformation (For Action June 18, 2013, 12 p.m.)

Whereas, The Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District recognizes the essential role of parents and legal guardians in every aspect of their child’s public education and in the successful transformation of schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District;
Whereas, California State Education Code 53300-53303 (The Parent Empowerment Act) allows for parents at persistently lowest achieving schools to trigger options for school transformation if over 50% of parents or legal guardians at a campus sign a petition calling for the implementation of one of four interventions;

Whereas, California State Education Code 53300-53303 only allows parents and legal guardians who sign the petition to vote for the selected transformation model;

Whereas, California State Education Code 53300-53303 does not currently require public meetings or other mechanisms to ensure accurate and balanced information about school performance or transformation options be provided to all stakeholders during the petition process;

Whereas, Two District elementary schools have been transformed through this process in the 2013-14 school year and the Board assumes there will be several attempts to transform District schools in the 2014-15 school year;

Whereas, Very limited information about the school and monitoring of the signature gathering process was presented to the Board for 24th Street and Weigand Avenue Elementary Schools;

REGULAR MEETING ORDER OF BUSINESS

333 South Beaudry Avenue, Board Room 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Public Comments on Items to be Discussed at This Meeting

The public can address the Board at the commencement of the meeting in the Board Room on any item that is described in this notice or other issues under the purview of the Board of Education. At the conclusion of the closed session portion of the meeting, announcements required regarding actions taken by the Board of Education will be made in the Board Room.
—-

Bd. of Ed. Regular Board (CS) Meeting – 1 – Order of Business, 9:00 a.m., 06-18-132.

Whereas, The Board has not adopted specific policies and guidelines for receiving petitions and validating the transformation process; and

Whereas, The Superintendent has not issued clear guidelines for principals and school site personnel regarding protocols and operational procedures for each stage of the parent trigger process; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District directs the Office of General Counsel and the Superintendent to submit the following information to the Board for each future transformation petition that is presented to the Board:

1. Independent verification of the signatures and the signature gathering process

2. Evidence of public notice and a summary of information presented at a public meeting held in the school community detailing accurate information about the school and the
available options for transformation

3. An analysis of five years of school data

4. A summary of interventions attempted at the school site and an analysis the success or failure of these attempted interventions

5. An analysis of school report card data and/or school climate survey data;

Resolved further, That the Superintendent bring guidelines and operational procedures for school site personnel to use during parent trigger processes for review by the Board at the first scheduled business meeting of the 2013-14 school year; and, be it finally

Resolved, That the Board urges the Superintendent and Office of Government Relations staff to seek legislative changes to California State Education Code 53300-53303 that will better serve all parents and legal guardians in the transformation process. These changes should include, but not be limited to:

1. Provisions that ensure all parents and legal guardians (not solely those who sign the petition) be allowed meaningful participation in all aspects of the transformation process and vote on the transformation option;

2. Provisions that ensure accurate and independently verifiable information about school performance and transformation options that are available to all parents; and

3. Provisions that safeguard against manipulation of families in the process and validate training of all Parent Empowerment Act signature gatherers.

Earlier today, Ben Austin wrote an open letter to me on Huffington Post. He expressed dismay about my characterization of him and his group Parent Revolution. Read his letter here. Here is my reply.

Dear Ben Austin,

Thank you for your invitation to engage in dialogue in your letter posted on Huffington Post.

You probably know that I have been writing a daily blog for the past fourteen months and during that time, I have written over 4,000 posts. I can’t remember any time when I have lost my temper other than when I wrote about your successful effort to oust an elementary school principal in Los Angeles named Irma Cobian.

I apologize for calling you “loathsome,” though I do think your campaign against a hardworking, dedicated principal working in an inner-city school was indeed loathsome. And it was wrong of me to say that there was a special place in hell reserved for anyone “who administers and funds this revolting organization that destroys schools and fine educators like Irma Cobian.”

As I said, I lost my temper, and I have to explain why.

I don’t like bullies. When I saw this woman targeted by your powerful organization, it looked like bullying. Your organization is funded by many millions of dollars from the Walton Family Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. You have a politically powerful organization, and you used your power to single out this one woman and get her fired.

Your organization sent in paid staff to collect signatures from parents. The teachers in the school were not permitted to express their opinion to parents about your efforts to fire their principal. When you succeeded in getting her fired, 21 of the 22 teachers on staff requested a transfer. That suggests that Cobian has the loyalty of her staff and is a good leader.

Who is this woman that you ousted?

All I know about her is what I read in this article in the Los Angeles Times.

It said: “More than two decades ago, Cobian walked away from a high-powered law firm to teach. The daughter of Mexican immigrants, she said she was inspired by a newspaper article about the low high school graduation rates of Latinos and wanted to make a difference.

“Her passion for social justice led her to Watts in 2009.”

Irma Cobain is now in her fourth year as principal of the school, and you decided that her time was up.

What did her teachers say about her?

“Third-grade teacher Kate Lewis said Irma Cobian is the best principal she’s had in nine years at Weigand Avenue Elementary School in Watts.

“Joseph Shamel called Cobian a “godsend” who has used her mastery of special education to show him how to craft effective learning plans for his students.”

“Fourth-grade teacher Hector Hernandez said Cobian is the first principal he’s had who frequently pops into classrooms to model good teaching herself. Recently, he said, she demonstrated how to teach about different literary genres by engaging students in lively exercises using characters from the “Avengers” comic book and film.”

When Cobian arrived at the Weigand Avenue Elementary school four years ago, she found a school with low test scores, low parent involvement, and divisiveness over a dual-language program. “All the students come from low-income families, more than half are not fluent in English and a quarter turn over every year,” the Los Angeles Times story said.

Cobian decided to focus on improving literacy and raising morale. She certainly won over the faculty.

The day after Cobian learned about the vote removing her, she went to a second-grade classroom to give prizes to children who had read 25 books this year. She cheered those who met the goal and encouraged those who were trying. But she could not hide her sadness.

“I need happiness today,” Cobian told the bright-eyed students. “What do I do when I’m sad?”

“Come here!” the students sang out.

For a moment, her sadness gave way to smiles. But later, she said: “I am crushed.”

Ben, how did you feel when you read that? I felt sad. I felt this was a caring and dedicated person who had been singled out unfairly.

Ben, I hope you noticed in the article that Dr. John Deasy, the superintendent of schools in Los Angeles, praised the plan that Cobian and her staff developed for improving the school. He called it a “well-organized program for accelerated student achievement.” He thanked Cobian for her commitment and hard work.” But you decided she should be fired.

Ironically, the parent who worked with you to fire Cobian said she preferred Weigand to her own neighborhood school where she had concerns about bullying. Even stranger, the parents at Cobian’s school voted to endorse her plan. Your parent spokesperson said she did not like the plan because it focused on reading and writing, but she told the reporter from the Los Angeles Times that she actually never read the plan.

I understand from your letter, Ben, that you somehow feel you are a victim because of what I wrote about you. But, Ben, you are not a victim. Irma Cobian is the victim here. She lost her job because of your campaign to get rid of her. She is the one who was humiliated and suffered loss of income and loss of reputation. You didn’t. You still have your organization, your staff, and the millions that the big foundations have given you.

I am sorry you had a tough childhood. We all have our stories about growing up. I am one of eight children. My father was a high-school dropout. My mother immigrated from Bessarabia and was very proud of her high school diploma from the Houston public schools. She was proud that she learned to speak English “like a real American.” My parents were grateful for the free public schools of Houston, where I too graduated from high school. We had our share of problems and setbacks but I won’t go on about myself or my siblings because my story and yours are really beside the point. What troubles me is what you are doing with the millions you raise. You use it to sow dissension, to set parents against parents, parents against teachers, parents against principals. I don’t see this as productive or helpful. Schools function best when there is collaboration among teachers, parents, administrators, and students. Schools have a better chance of success for the children when they have a strong community and culture of respect.

Your “parent trigger” destroys school communities. True to its name, the “trigger” blasts them apart. It causes deep wounds. It decimates the spirit of respect and comity that is necessary to build a strong community. Frankly, after the school shootings of recent years, your use of the metaphor of a “parent trigger” is itself offensive. We need fewer triggers pointed at schools and educators. Please find a different metaphor, one that does not suggest violence and bloodshed.

It must be very frustrating to you and your funders that–three years after passage of the “parent trigger” law– you can’t point to a single success story. I am aware that you persuaded the parents at the Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, California, to turn their public school over to a privately operated charter. I recall that when parents at the school tried to remove their signatures from your petition, your organization went to court and won a ruling that they were not allowed to rescind their signatures. Ultimately only 53 parents in a school of more than 600 children chose the charter operator. Since the charter has not yet opened, it is too soon to call that battle a success for Parent Revolution. Only the year before, the Adelanto Charter Academy lost its charter because the operators were accused of financial self-dealing.

But, Ben, let me assure you that I bear you no personal ill will. I just don’t approve of what you are doing. I think it is wrong to organize parents to seize control of their public school so they can fire the staff or privatize it. If the principal is doing a bad job, it is Dr. Deasy’s job to remove her or him. I assume that veteran principals and teachers get some kind of due process, where charges are filed and there is a hearing. If Cobain was as incompetent as you say, why didn’t Dr. Deasy bring her up on charges and replace her?

I also have a problem with the idea that parents can sign a petition and hand their public school off to a private charter corporation. The school doesn’t belong to the parents whose children are enrolled this year. It belongs to the public whose taxes built it and maintains it. As the L.A. Times story pointed out, one-quarter of the children at Weigand Avenue Elementary School are gone every year. The parents who sign a petition this year may not even be parents in the school next year. Why should they have the power to privatize the school? Should the patrons of a public library have the power to sign a petition and privatize the management? Should the people using a public park have the right to take a vote and turn the park over to private management?

We both care about children. I care passionately about improving education for all children. I assume you do as well. You think that your organized raids on public schools and professionals will lead to improvement. I disagree. Schools need adequate resources to succeed. They also need experienced professionals, a climate of caring, and stability. I don’t see anything in the “trigger” concept that creates the conditions necessary for improvement. Our teachers and principals are already working under too much stress, given that schools have become targets for federal mandates and endless reforms.

I suggest that educators need respect and thanks for their daily work on behalf of children. If they do a bad job, the leadership of the school system is responsible to take action. What educators don’t need is to have a super-rich, super-powerful organization threatening to pull the trigger on their career and their good name.

Ben, thanks for the open letter and the chance to engage in dialogue. If you don’t mind, I want to apologize to Irma Cobain on your behalf. She was doing her best. She built a strong staff that believes in her. She wrote a turnaround plan that Dr. Deasy liked and the parents approved. Ms. Cobain, if you read this, I hope you can forgive Ben. Maybe next time, he will think twice, get better information, and consider the consequences before he decides to take down another principal.

Diane Ravitch

Ellen Lubic of UCLA writes in response to an earlier post which asserted that the goal of corporate reform is gentrification, not education reform:

In support of what is being posited here, one only needs to review the landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2005 in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London. It is referred to as the “reverse Robin Hood case where land is taken from the poor and given to the rich.”

In this case a privately owned shopping center was taken by eminent domain and then sold by the city to a private corporation for redevelopment. This happened on the theory that the new development would bring more tax funding for the City.

Now this is extended by Chicago school closings, this appropriated property which indeed can be used for ostensible redevelopment…e.g. gentrification of the South Side.

Last night Charlie Rose interviewed Rahm Emanuel and the Mayor stressed his goals with his top priority being public education. He repeatedly spoke of how difficult it is to make change, but that his intention is to stick with it and keep his policy of school reform.

It is all very disheartening. Who can be trusted to work for The People…all The People?

Today, in Los Angeles, the LAUSD School Board is meeting to do budgeting, mainly of the huge new funding brought into the mix by the windfall of Prop. 30 which caused California taxes to be raised. Our Governor promised to focus distribution heavily in favor of inner city schools. The outcry from the suburbs is resounding. And now, Brown wants to spend the money mainly for implementing Common Core.

All over our county teachers and activists are beginning to emulate Chicago’s brave teachers, and committees and protest groups are being formed. It is a slow awakening in the second largest school district in the nation where Eli Broad has way too much voice and power…but I am hoping it will lead to a giant protest when our city realizes that we have the greatest amount of school closings in America, happening so quietly, fostered by Villaraigosa and Deasy, and leading to the highest number of charter schools .Putting facts before the public is difficult with so much controlled media and only one major newspaper, the LA Times, which Rupert Murdoch is intent on buying.

I know that Howard Blume reads this blog and I hope he will continue to focus on charter scams and Parent Revolution scams, all funded by the free market billionaires, Eli Broad, Rupert Murdoch, the Walton Family Foundation, etc. with the goal of making public education a free market opportunity.

A reader in Los Angeles welcomes all who care about improving public education:

Parents from all across Los Angeles are Mobilizing!!!!

Please gather tomorrow, Tuesday June 4 at 8:30 am out front of LAUSD central offices on Beaudry street downtown.

Lend your voice to a collective choir that demands to be heard.

We are Students, Parents and Angelenos for Real Classroom Support: SPARCS.

We must ignite the SPARCS of this truth in front of our elected school board:

KIDS NEED SMALLER CLASSES IN ORDER TO LEARN BETTER

What We Stand For:

Strong, Truly Public Schools. In Los Angeles, we demand truly public schools accountable to the public, administered and run by individuals dedicated to educating every child.

Democracy Fortified Through Public Education. Every child in Los Angeles has a civil right to attend a good public school dedicated primarily to their education.

Dynamic, Responsive Public Education. Appropriate, effective evaluation of our public schools, with parents welcomed, respected and contributing to decisions regarding the school system at every level.

What We Stand Against:

Privatizing Public Schools. The educational system is a sacred public trust, part of the social contract. We have a moral responsibility to the social and educational welfare of all among us.

Mechanized Schooling. All learners are individuals; standardization of classes and tests eliminates the unique contribution of a professional teacher to education and learning.

Public School Control By Non-participants. Educators should drive educational public policy; family and society its social components. Political demogoguery has no place in our social contract to provide effective Public Schooling for all.

Who We Are:

We are many. We are parents from across all of Los Angeles Unified’s seven districts. We have children in LAUSD. We are children in LAUSD. We are concerned with and about children in LAUSD.

We are Students, Parents, Angelenos for Real Classroom Support: SPARCS

If you stand with us, amplify our SPARCS by joining here:

http://www.facebook.com/SPaARCS

A letter from a reader in Los Angeles:

Hi Diane. I thought your readers would be interested to hear that the light might be shining in Los Angeles.

Could it be that there is some good news on the horizon for Los Angeles public schools? This Tuesday the school board will vote on a resolution to reduce class size. Parents throughout LA are thrilled that such a sound resolution is being proposed. Board member Bennett Kayser is sponsoring the measure with Richard Vladovic and Steve Zimmer co-sponsoring.
The resolution includes a commitment to “creating the most enriching academic environment for all students, which includes a reduction in class-size.

Class size reduction yields:

– Reduction in the achievement gap

– Early identification of learning disabilities

– Improved high school graduation rates

– Increased college entrance rates

– Improved student behavior”

They’re even proposing to bring back librarians. We hope parents, educators and advocates for public schools will contact their school board member and urge the school board to take this first step out of the dark ages of public education. Coming to the board meeting is even better. Tuesday, June 4, 9:00am at LAUSD headquarters.

The Los Angeles Times is not at all pleased with the way the so-called “parent trigger” is working out. The editorial board wants a more open, transparent process.

The editorial does not point out that only one organization has pushed the idea that parents should seize control of a public institution. “Parent Revolution”–funded by billionaires–wrote the law, sends paid community organizers to gather parent signatures, and litigates to push its goals without full information to parents who don’t want to privatize their school or fire their principal or teachers.

The legislature should not tinker with this bad law. It should repeal it. The public schools belong to the community, not to those who may not even be parents next year in the same school.

It has been three years since the passage of “parent trigger” legislation in California, and the law has produced nothing but strife among parents, teachers, and administrators. Corporate reformers backed by billionaires like to say that “kids can’t wait,” but the hostile “trigger” creates strife and the illusion of change, not better schools.

Good schools have a strong collaborative spirit among administrators, teachers, parents, and students. All work together towards a common goal of educating the children. Whatever strengthens the spirit of teamwork strengthens the school and builds its capacity.

The “parent trigger” by definition is a hostile act. It creates division and conflict. It sets parents against parents. It sets parents against teachers. It sets parents against administrators. It is a “trigger” and triggers kill.

In the latest “victory” for Parent Revolution, the organization that has received millions from the Walton, Gates, and Broad Foundations, the principal of Wiegand Elementary School in Los Angeles was ousted. Now parents are holding counter-demonstrations, and accusations are flying.

It is noteworthy that when Parent Revolution tried and failed to convert McKinley Elementary School in Compton, California, to a charter, the charter opened nearby, but few of the McKinley parents transferred their children to it. Parent Revolution’s only “success” thus far was in Adelanto, where they gathered enough signatures to convert Desert Trails Elementary to a charter; when parents tried to remove their signatures from the petition, saying they had been duped, a judge denied them the right to do so. One of the parent leaders in Adelanto is now an employee of Parent Revolution. Many of those who signed the petition no longer have children in the school.

The legislature should scrap this pernicious law. To begin with, public schools don’t belong to the parents of children now enrolled. They belong to the public, whose taxes built them and maintain them. Only duly elected and appointed officials should be empowered to privatize public property or to fire the school’s leader. The law as presently written is vigilante justice, which is seldom just. It allows Parent Revolution to sign parents up through deceitful tactics and force changes that cripple school communities. It is no accident that the “trigger” idea has been embraced by the reactionary group ALEC, which would like to eliminate public education altogether.

The Red Queen in LA offers a brief tutorial on the meaning of the astonishing electoral victory of Monica Ratliff—and before that, the remarkable upset win of Steve Zimmer.

Both ran against a barrage of out-of-state millions. Zimmer had the support of UTLA, Ratliff did not.

No one thought that either had a chance. Ratliff raised about $50,000 in small donations. Her opponent had millions.

Both won by the same 52-48 margin.

What does it mean?

It means the board has a majority that will rein in John Deasy. It may mean the board will slow down or stop the wildfire growth of unaccountable charters. It may mean a careful review of teacher evaluation methods.

It certainly means that the board will slow down the rush to privatize public education in LA.

That’s great news.