Archives for category: Los Angeles

This comment asks an important question. With billionaire money flooding state and local school board races in California, what will the Democratic candidates for mayor of LA do or say?

Will the Democratic parties in other states have the gumption to renounce those who are destroying public education and attacking teachers?

The comment:

Too bad Antonio Villarigosa is leaving office–I’d like to see his response to this since he is a leading Democratic waterboy for corporate reform in California.

I posted this to the two candidates for Los Angeles mayor’s Facebook pages:

I would like to hear Eric Garcetti’s response to the CA Democratic Party’s condemnation of corporate driven public education reform that put the profits of hedge fund managers ahead of what teachers, researchers, and parents think is best for educating our kids.

Breaking News! California Democratic Party Blasts Corporate Education Reform: UPDATE

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was a big supporter of this profoundly corrupt policy.

Will Eric Garcetti support PUBLIC public schools instead of trying to privatize them?

Eric Garcetti:

https://www.facebook.com/ericgarcetti?fref=ts

Wendy Greuel:
https://www.facebook.com/wendygreuel?fref=ts

Please read this statement by Bennett Kayser.

He ran against a heavily funded candidate for the Los Angeles school board, and he won.

He is a public school parent.

He is endorsing Monica Ratliff, because she too is running against the billionaires’ candidate.

He believes that the LAUSD school board should have another independent voice.

Local school board elections should not be bought by outside interests who have no connection to the district, the community or the city.

The only thing that can beat them is an informed public.

I have tried to stay informed about what was happening to Venice High School in Los Angeles.

It was confusing.

The community, with no notice, was offered a choice: take Steve Barr’s pilot school or you will get a charter school. Remember Barr, the founder of the Green Do charters, an entrepreneur, not an educator.

Who was making the decisions?

Why no consultation?

Why the haste?

A parent at VHS explains the back story here.

It is a fascinating story involving Superintendent John Deasey, newly re-elected board member Steve Zimmer, and other players. It seems the re-election of Zimmer upset a lot of apple carts.

LA Times reporter Teresa Watanabe gives a good accounting of what happened at Venice High School in Los Angeles.

The LAUSD board approved an “incubator school” to teach middle school students how to start their own business. How cool is that!?

However, the Venice community–parents and students–reacted negatively and the business school for pre-teens may have to go elsewhere.

Ah, innovation. What will they think of next? Day trading in kindergarten?

The Venice High School in Los Angeles has been offered a choice by the district administration: accept a pilot school or a charter school to share your space. The community was not asked for its input nor offered the choice to say no to a pilot school and a charter school.

The first pilot school was going to be created by non-educator Steve Barr, but the LA board decided to backtrack so they approved the plan to co-locate in the VHS building but to locate Barr’s school elsewhere.

The principal of Venice High School was told that a decision about the future of the school will be made during spring break. A typical reformer trick to make sure that the people most affected are not asked to participate in the decisions that affect them.

The principal sent out the following appeal to the Venice High School community, inviting them to deliberate the future of the school. It was a bold move to assert the concept that the public schools belong to the public, not to John Deasey, not to Monica Garcia, not to Eli Broad or Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg or Wall Street. Its about an old-fashioned but nearly forgotten idea called democracy, where the voice of the public matters.

They met yesterday, and I look forward to hearing what was decided.

She wrote:

Pilot School Information

Dear Venice High School Community,

I wanted to give you an update to the LAUSD School Board vote regarding the Incubator Pilot School.

The School Board decided yesterday, 3/19/13 to approve the Incubator Pilot School but not the location. The board specified that either Venice High School’s SBM OR SSC vote on whether the Pilot School should be placed on our campus. The alternative is that if Venice denies the Pilot, a charter school would be offered the 14 empty classrooms.

At first, we thought we had until the next time the board meets, which is in April to make a decision.

During a late afternoon, phone conference today, with several central and ESC-W staff members, I was informed that the district has a legal deadline to meet in regards to offering space to a charter school, which is next Friday, March 29, 2013 (when we are on Spring Break). Venice High School therefore has to make a decision by this Friday, March 22 on whether we are approving the Pilot School to co-locate on our campus or not. Again, if we decide not to have the Pilot School co-locate on Venice HS, the empty classrooms will be offered to a charter school.

The Incubator Pilot School Design Team and Sponsors will be here all day tomorrow, 8:00 a.m.- 4:00 p.m. to facilitate optional informational sessions for teachers and parents during the different periods. They will also speak with the Leadership Class tomorrow. Please feel free to see them and get more information if needed.

I am calling for an emergency SBM and SSC meeting for Friday, March 22, 2013 at 12:40 p.m. Under the Brown Act an emergency meeting can be called with a 24-hour notification. I think it is best that we come together as a big group to hear the same information and then we can break and vote as individual groups. The Incubator Pilot School Design Team will also be available on Friday, 12:30 p.m. to 3 :00 p.m. to provide any additional information. I apologize for the inconvenience but this is truly out of my hands. We have tough decisions to make for the future of Venice High School but I have the confidence in each and every one of you that you will vote with your heart and mind and do what is best of our students.

Please know that I will share any and all information I get regarding the Pilot School in a fast and transparent manner and that might include late night emails. I will also be sending out an automated call to the entire Venice HS community informing them of this change of plans and post information on the website. Again, I thank you for all that you do.

Elsa Mendoza, Ed. D.
Principal
Venice High School

Yesterday I wrote a post about a decision by the Los Angeles school board to reject Steve Barr’s request to put a “pilot school” in Venice High School. Presumably the rejection was influenced by a massive outpouring of opposition by parents and students. Barr is an entrepreneur, not an educator. He started Green Dot charter schools but resigned over a financial issue involving misuse of school funds.

Thus far, I have had to rely on accounts from local parents about what is happening in Venice because the story has gotten almost no media attention, other than an incomplete blog entry at the Los Angeles Times.

This comment just in on the fate of Venice High School.

The writer says:

“Venice now has to vote on whether the “empty space” will be given over to a charter school or that same pilot school. In essence, they now get to choose their method of execution. Interesting times.”

Notice the choice hat is missing: none of the bone.

This is what corporate reformers mean by choice: You may not choose a community school. You must choose what they give you whether you want it or not. You may not choose to say no.

I received an urgent message from a parent of a student at Venice High school in Los Angeles. She was desperate because had just learned that the privatization-friendly LA school board was about to vote on whether to give half of Venice High School to Steve Barr, eduentrepreneur (founder of Green Dot charters but now running a new charter chain). He wanted to start a “pilot school,” and this parent was outraged because, she said, Venice is a good school and didn’t need another school to take half its space away.

She wrote later to tell me that Venice High had narrowly escaped.

This reader offers his perspective:

“At the Tuesday LAUSD Board Meeting Deasy’s and Steve Barr’s sneak attack on Venice High School was stopped. The board voted to approve the plan but not the location because LAUSD and Barr made sure that until the last moment the public did not know. In fact a board member brought up Barr’s name and said it was in their documentation. I looked at my large printout and it was in theirs not ours. A student obtained in less than 2 days about 1,000 signature to not have that school on their campus.

“Previous to this as a result of Steve Zimmer being elected instead of the corporate privatizer put up by Rhee and friends Monica Garcia, every privatizers bought and sold friend, will not be board president after this term. She has had six and that has never before happened. Now no one can have it for more than 2 years.”

In this pairing of opposites, David Kirp takes on the mythology of corporate reformers and says we should fix the schools we have, rather than close them. He boldly challenges the claims of Michelle Rhee and disparages the hapless Race to the Top

On the same page, Michelle Rhee displays her inability to speak truth. She reviews the Los Angeles school board election and makes the bizarre claim that school board president Monica Garcia won even though she was “strongly targeted” by the United Teachers of Los Angeles.

She neglects to mention that Garcia had the help of the $4 million fund raised by Rhee and friends, while the UTLA endorsed several candidates opposing her. The second place contender had a bulging war chest of less than $20,000, raised in small amounts.

She skips over the triumph of Steve Zimmer, who beat Rhee’s candidate despite being outspent 4-1. Rhee and her buddies got beaten in the race they targeted, and now she tries to spin it into a victory. Amazing

Rhee would have readers believe that she, Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg, and Rupert Murdoch are fighting for the kids, and those evil teachers don’t care about them.

Really, this grows stale as well as ridiculous

Great reporting by Howard Blume in the Los Angeles Times about the school board race.

DFER–the hedge fund managers who call themselves Democrats for Education Reform–put out a hilarious press release boasting of the victory of Monica Garcia over a field of four candidates with no funding. She outspent her closest competitor by 50-1, more or less.

But the nearly $4 million raised by the billionaire boys wasn’t enough to beat Steve Zimmer.

True, the teachers’ union spent $1 million. But why shouldn’t they? They are directly affected by the decisions of the school board, unlike Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg, and the other tycoons who tried to buy Zimmer’s seat.

Zimmer is independent. He won’t do the union’s bidding. But at least, he won’t set out to do harm and he will understand the consequences of his actions on real teachers and real children, not computer projections thereof.

This parent was not opposed to charters. She didn’t pay much attention to battles over school issues, although her own children attend a public school in Los Angeles.

But when she realized that millions of dollars were flowing into the school board race, many from out of state, she began to realize that something big was going on.

She realized that the big money was interested in something other than its stated aims. She realized that the rhetoric of “reform” was a cover for privatization of public goods:

“This election, with its shockingly outsized spending has revealed a hidden agenda, as old as the hills. With massive institutions and systems is embedded the opportunity for equally massive personal gain. Prerequisite is private control, wrenched from what was formerly public, democratic governance. Couching this banality of greed in educational ideology has been an effective strategy, but tonight’s results suggest a whisper of increasing awareness and resistance to uncontrolled and unbridled, unjustified change.

“Because the evidence is starting to pour in. The Reform School agenda which seeks to install privately setup small, isolated, corporately run charter schools are at best no worse than their public counterparts, and reach a small, select subset of the public besides. They result in breathtaking segregation and privation and an impoverished educational landscape. They leach public resources. Unaffordable, now, are the rich opportunities of varied educational “services” like music programs and art programs, lending libraries and speech and behavioural therapists. This School Reform Emperor has no clothes, and the evidence while slow to come in, is arriving at last.”