Help Mayor Villaraigosa Fix LA Schools!
Having fun cleaning out the inbox! Here's more Spam Mail ---
Mayoral Leadership for Our Schools
Dear xxxxxxxxxxx,
Today, 53 percent of 9th graders in the Los Angeles Unified School District do not graduate from high school. Of the kids that do, many are unprepared to enter the workforce; more still fail to meet the minimum standards for admission to the state’s university system.
Legislation to be heard in the Senate this week will provide a chance to create meaningful change. The bill empowers Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to use his political power to remedy failing schools - a key part of what he told voters he wanted to do as mayor.
Use the letter below to support Senate Bill 767, an important step in reforming public education and improving schools for our children. Click on "Take Action" to personalize and send your message.
Christopher Cabaldon, President
EdVoice
Send a letter to the following decision maker(s):
Senator Abel Maldonado
Senator Dick Ackerman
Senator Don Perata
Senator Gloria Romero
Senator Jack Scott
Your State Senator (if you live in CA)
Below is the sample letter:
Subject: Support SB 767
Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],
I am in strong support of Senate Bill 767, a bill that would enable Mayor Villaraigosa to fix our failing schools. Mr. Villaraigosa brings a new vision to school policy and as mayor brings powerful resources and accountability. We elected Mr. Villaraigosa to lead and improve life for all of the people of Los Angeles; this bill will give him the power to fulfill his promise.
Our schools are currently in a state of crisis. Our kids struggle to read and write in schools where they don't feel safe, in school rooms that are outdated and falling apart. A child that doesn't feel safe can't learn. Many of these kids decide it's not worth it and quit. How many kids have to drop out before we make a commitment to real change? We can't let our kids give up on their future; the best way to do this is to show them we're not willing to quit on them.
This is why we must put our best foot forward and put our best leader on the job. Mayor Villaraigosa is the man to fix o! ur schools and as mayor he brings powerful tools that would allow him to do so.
We elected Mayor Villaraigosa to make Los Angeles great. How can he do this without the power to improve education? The Mayor can tie a school to its community, bring in other city resources and get everyone involved.
Our kids deserve every opportunity, I'm afraid that our current failing system will leave them unprepared for the increasingly competitive jobs of the future. We all want a better life for our children; this bill would put our best leader to work at making this a reality.
Sincerely,
[your name here]
Mayoral Leadership for Our SchoolsDear xxxxxxxxxxx,
Today, 53 percent of 9th graders in the Los Angeles Unified School District do not graduate from high school. Of the kids that do, many are unprepared to enter the workforce; more still fail to meet the minimum standards for admission to the state’s university system.
Legislation to be heard in the Senate this week will provide a chance to create meaningful change. The bill empowers Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to use his political power to remedy failing schools - a key part of what he told voters he wanted to do as mayor.
Use the letter below to support Senate Bill 767, an important step in reforming public education and improving schools for our children. Click on "Take Action" to personalize and send your message.
Christopher Cabaldon, President
EdVoice
Send a letter to the following decision maker(s):
Senator Abel Maldonado
Senator Dick Ackerman
Senator Don Perata
Senator Gloria Romero
Senator Jack Scott
Your State Senator (if you live in CA)
Below is the sample letter:
Subject: Support SB 767
Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],
I am in strong support of Senate Bill 767, a bill that would enable Mayor Villaraigosa to fix our failing schools. Mr. Villaraigosa brings a new vision to school policy and as mayor brings powerful resources and accountability. We elected Mr. Villaraigosa to lead and improve life for all of the people of Los Angeles; this bill will give him the power to fulfill his promise.
Our schools are currently in a state of crisis. Our kids struggle to read and write in schools where they don't feel safe, in school rooms that are outdated and falling apart. A child that doesn't feel safe can't learn. Many of these kids decide it's not worth it and quit. How many kids have to drop out before we make a commitment to real change? We can't let our kids give up on their future; the best way to do this is to show them we're not willing to quit on them.
This is why we must put our best foot forward and put our best leader on the job. Mayor Villaraigosa is the man to fix o! ur schools and as mayor he brings powerful tools that would allow him to do so.
We elected Mayor Villaraigosa to make Los Angeles great. How can he do this without the power to improve education? The Mayor can tie a school to its community, bring in other city resources and get everyone involved.
Our kids deserve every opportunity, I'm afraid that our current failing system will leave them unprepared for the increasingly competitive jobs of the future. We all want a better life for our children; this bill would put our best leader to work at making this a reality.
Sincerely,
[your name here]
Posted by Anonymous @ 8/16/2005 07:43:00 PM
69 Comments:
Antonio doesn't want to fix the schools. Don't you remember Gloria Romero introducing a bill to give the mayor of LA more control and Antonio backed away for the topic of control? He couldn't even run ONE district, he hasn't done anything in 2 months as mayor and you really think he can do something about LAUSD? NOT!
Senate Bill 767 (from the current session) seems to have nothing to do with LAUSD, and instead everything to do with its current stated topic: "Private Postsecondary Institutions" and their accreditation by various state-wide entities.
Look up the bill yourself at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
Read the Analysis from the latest Senate Education Committee, dated April 25, 2005.
I don't get it? What is the story here? That these politicians are openly supporting Villaraigosa?
SB 767 is a horrible, elitist and ill conceived bill that does not take into consideration other communities outside of the "City of Los Angeles" that are part of the school district. If this bill passes our educational system will become a system of political paubacks and go to the highest bidder. It removes the small accountability that already exist.
Anonymous 9:37 p.m.,
What are you talking about?! How does this bill affect LAUSD and/or the City of Los Angeles? Neither of them run a "Private Postsecondary Institution" (as far as I know).
Also, why the quotes around City of Los Angeles? Is the city that illegitimate to you?
Please define "paulbacks" while you are at it.
Meant paybacks. The City of LA is not the only city that the district serves and it is elitist to think so and not allow for other areas to have a say in the appointment by the Mayor of Los Angeles.
Open the bill and read it!
Just in case you can't hear it is.
BILL NUMBER: SB 767 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 14, 2005
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 2005
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 4, 2005
INTRODUCED BY Senator Romero
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
An act to amend Sections 94736, 94739, 94740.3, 94740.5,
94746, 94802, 94905, 94945, and 94960 of the Education Code, relating
to private postsecondary education. An act to add
Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 5500) to Part 4 of the Education
Code, relating to school district governance.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 767, as amended, Romero Private postsecondary
institutions: exemption from approval. Los Angeles
Unified School District: Appointment of board members.
(1) Existing law requires any unified school district which is
coterminous with or includes within its boundaries a chartered city
or city and county to be governed by the board of education provided
for in the charter of the city or city and county. Existing law
requires the governing body of a school district to be composed of 7
members, elected as provided, for any school district situated wholly
or partly within a city containing a population of over 1,900,000
according to the 1950 federal census. Existing law authorizes the
governing board of any school district employing 8 or more teachers
to employ a district superintendent for one or more schools and to
delegate the duties of the superintendent.
This bill would establish the Mayoral Leadership to Improve
Education in Los Angeles Act to require the mayor of the City of Los
Angeles to, upon a finding of educational failure, as defined,
appoint any vacancies on the Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD) Board of Education and to appoint a new member upon the
expiration of the term of an incumbent member. The bill would require
the mayor to make the appointments from a list of nominations
provided by a panel of advisers, which panel members are selected and
composed as specified, and would require each appointment made by
the mayor to be confirmed by a majority vote of the city council of
the City of Los Angeles. The bill would require, upon the finding of
educational failure, the governing board of the LAUSD to be expanded
from 7 to 9 members, as provided, thereby imposing a state-mandated
local program. The bill would also authorize the mayor, upon the
finding of educational failure, to appoint the superintendent of the
LAUSD, subject to confirmation by the city council by majority vote.
The bill would authorize the mayor to rescind the finding of
educational failure once certain minimal academic performance
criteria are satisfied.
(2) This bill would make a legislative finding and declaration of
unique circumstances in this regard.
(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
(1) Existing law, the Private Postsecondary and Vocational
Education Reform Act of 1989 (private postsecondary act), generally
sets minimum standards of instructional quality, ethical and business
practices, health and safety, and fiscal responsibility for private
postsecondary and vocational educational institutions, as defined.
The act establishes the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and
Vocational Education, which, among other things, is required to
review and investigate all institutions, programs, and courses of
instruction approved under the act. By its own terms, the act is
repealed as of January 1, 2008.
An existing provision of the act defines the terms "Occupational
Associate Degree," "Associate of Occupational Studies," and
"Associate of Applied Science" to mean an associate degree that may
be awarded to students who complete an occupational program that
provides preparation for employment in an occupational field, and
specifies several types of associate degrees that are included within
this definition.
This bill would specify that the AA or Associate Arts degree is
included within this definition.
(2) An existing provision of the act specifies the types of
institutions that are not included within the scope of the act,
including institutions accredited by the Accrediting Commission for
Senior Colleges and Universities or the Accrediting Commission for
Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools
and Colleges that are incorporated and lawfully operating as either
public benefit corporations or for-profit institutions.
This bill would provide that, notwithstanding these provisions,
these institutions that are for-profit institutions are subject to
the student and consumer protections and the bureau's oversight and
the requirements of the act with respect to all of the vocational
programs of instruction offered by the institution to the extent
these protections and requirements would otherwise apply, given the
characteristics and particulars of that program of instruction.
(3) Existing provisions of the act define "non-WASC regional
accrediting agency" and "non-WASC regionally accredited institution,"
and thus make a distinction between the Western Association of
Schools and Colleges (WASC) and other regional accrediting agencies
and the institutions that are accredited by these agencies.
This bill would delete the terms "non-WASC regional accrediting
agency" and "non-WASC regionally accredited institution" from the
act, and replace these terms with "regional accrediting agency" and
"regionally accredited institution," and thus delete the distinction
between WASC and other regional accrediting agencies from the act.
(4) An existing provision of the act defines "vocational diploma
program" as an educational program meeting specified criteria.
This bill would change that term to "vocational program," and
would specify that one of the criteria to be met by a "vocational
program" would be met by the awarding of any of each category of
degree listed in the act's definition of "occupational associate
degree."
(5) An existing provision of the act requires the bureau to
forward complaints to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges
that the bureau receives pertaining to institutions accredited by
that association.
This bill would specify that the bureau would forward these
complaints when it has no oversight responsibility for the programs
of instruction or for the institution that is the subject of the
complaint.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no yes .
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
5500) is added to Part 4 of the Education Code
, to read:
CHAPTER 4. MAYORAL LEADERSHIP TO IMPROVE EDUCATION IN LOS
ANGELES ACT
Article 1. General Provisions
5500. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the
Mayoral Leadership to Improve Education in Los Angeles Act.
5501. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
are facing severe academic, financial, and infrastructure
challenges.
(b) Pupils in the LAUSD are vastly underachieving. The base score
of the LAUSD on the state's Academic Performance Index (API) remains
well below the state average and almost 50 percent of schools of the
LAUSD are ranked in deciles 1 to 3, inclusive, on the API.
(c) A recent Harvard University report found that graduation rates
for pupils of the LAUSD are much lower than previously acknowledged.
Currently, the LAUSD is graduating less than 50 percent of its
pupils.
(d) Classrooms and school infrastructure in the LAUSD are in an
unacceptable physical condition.
(e) Under the current governance structure, the LAUSD Board of
Education and its superintendent lack authority to coordinate
resources with local government agencies.
(f) Several major cities across the nation, including Boston, New
York, Chicago, and Cleveland, have implemented direct mayoral
leadership in schools, resulting in both improved academic
achievement and additional resources for educational programs.
5502. The purpose and intent of this chapter is to do all of the
following:
(a) Create a culture of strong leadership and accountability in
the LAUSD.
(b) Leverage financial resources from the City of Los Angeles and
better coordinate other funding to support education.
(c) Integrate the wide range of municipal services in the City of
Los Angeles, such as planning, transportation, recreation, and
security, with the needs of the LAUSD.
(d) Empower the mayor of the City of Los Angeles to bring together
teachers, parents, and people outside the traditional education
establishment giving the pupils in the LAUSD a fighting chance to get
the high quality education they deserve.
5503. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall
have the following meanings:
(a) "City council" means the City Council of the City of Los
Angeles.
(b) "Educational failure" means a determination by the mayor that
the LAUSD has not satisfied all of the following minimal academic
performance criteria:
(1) The base score of the LAUSD on the API is at or above 675 as
reported by the department.
(2) The LAUSD has achieved adequate yearly progress as required
under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C. Sec.
6301 et seq.) for two consecutive years in a row as reported by the
department.
(3) The LAUSD has a dropout rate in each of four consecutive years
below 20 percent as reported by the department.
(c) "Governing board" means the seven-member Los Angeles Unified
School District Board of Education.
(d) "LAUSD" means the Los Angeles Unified School District.
(e) "Mayor" means the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles.
Article 2. Mayoral Appointment of the Los Angeles Unified
School District Board of Education
5504. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, commencing
January 1, 2006, upon a finding of educational failure, a vacancy
occurring on the governing board shall be filled by appointment of
the mayor. The finding shall be made at least 125 days prior to the
date of election for the members of the governing board.
(b) Notwithstanding Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 5000) and
Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 5200), commencing January 1, 2006,
upon the finding of educational failure, an elected member of the
governing board who occupies an office as of January 1, 2006, shall
remain in that office for the remainder of his or her term and the
mayor shall appoint a new member upon the expiration of the term of
the incumbent elected member.
(c) If the mayor makes an appointment pursuant to subdivision (a)
or (b), the appointed member to the governing board shall be
appointed to a four-year term, but may be removed by the mayor at any
time.
5505. The terms and qualifications of appointed members shall be
the same as the terms and qualifications of the previously elected
members of the governing board.
5506. (a) Upon the finding of educational failure, the mayor may
appoint up to seven new members of the governing board as provided in
Section 5504.
(b) The mayor shall make appointments from a list of nominations
provided by a panel of advisers. The panel of advisers shall be
comprised of nine individuals, six selected by the mayor and three
selected by the president of the city council. The panel members
shall be a diverse group of community leaders selected from academia,
business, education organizations, and parent organizations. The
panel of advisers shall nominate able persons broadly reflective of
the economic and geographic diversity of the City of Los Angeles and
its schools.
(c) Each appointment made by the mayor shall be subject to
confirmation by a majority vote of the city council.
5507. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 5224 and 5224.1, upon the
finding of educational failure, and the establishment of the panel of
advisers for the purpose of exercising the authority to make an
appointment to the governing board pursuant to this chapter, the
governing board shall be expanded from seven to nine members.
(b) (1) The two additional members of the governing board shall be
residents of areas that are in the LAUSD but outside of the
boundaries City of Los Angeles and shall hold office numbers 1 and 2.
The two additional members shall be appointed by a selection
committee formed by (i) the incorporated cities whose jurisdiction
overlaps the LAUSD and (ii) the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Los Angeles.
(2) The appointments shall be considered and acted upon at a duly
noticed meeting of the selection committee, which shall meet in a
government building and provide an opportunity for testimony on the
qualifications of the candidates for appointment.
(3) The vote of a city within the selection committee shall be
weighted in the same proportion that its population within the LAUSD
bears to the total population of the LAUSD less the population of the
City of Los Angeles. The vote of the county shall be weighted in
the same proportion that its unincorporated population within the
LAUSD bears to the total population of the LAUSD less the population
of the City of Los Angeles. Each appointment shall be made by not
less than a majority of all the cities and the county, inclusive,
representing not less than a majority of the population of the LAUSD
less the population of the City of Los Angeles.
(4) The selection committee shall make appointments broadly
reflective of the economic and geographic diversity of the
represented communities.
(5) The initial terms of office shall begin on first day of the
July of the odd-numbered year following the finding of educational
failure. The initial and future terms of office for office number 1
shall be four years. The initial term of office for office number 2
shall be two years after which the term of office shall be four
years.
Article 3. Mayoral Appointment of the Superintendent of the
Los Angeles Unified School District
5508. Notwithstanding Article 3 (commencing with Section 35020)
of Chapter 1 of Part 21, upon the finding of educational failure, the
mayor may appoint the superintendent of the LAUSD. The appointment
shall be subject to confirmation by the city council by majority
vote. The appointed superintendent shall serve at the pleasure of the
mayor. The mayor shall honor the contract of any incumbent
superintendent, but is authorized to exercise any buyout clause in
the contract of the incumbent superintendent to terminate his or her
services.
Article 4. Mayoral Rescission
5509. The mayor may rescind the finding of educational failure
once the LAUSD satisfies all of the minimal academic performance
criteria in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 5503. Upon
rescission by the mayor of the finding of educational failure,
elections for the seven seats shall be held in accordance with
Sections 5224 and 5224.1. If the governing board was expanded from
the seven to nine members pursuant to Section 5507, the two
additional offices shall cease to exist.
Article 5. Miscellaneous Provisions
5510. A school district other than the LAUSD whose territory lies
within the boundaries of the City of Los Angeles is not subject to
this chapter.
SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that
due to the unique circumstances regarding the Los Angeles Unified
School District, a general statute cannot be made applicable within
the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California
Constitution.
SEC. 3. If the Commission on State Mandates
determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs
shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of
Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. All matter
omitted in this version of the bill appears in the bill as amended in
Senate, April 25, 2005 (JR11)
SB 767 is a huge step in the right direction. Villaraigosa will have immense pressure borne on him as he gets closer to the next election if the 50% culmination rate does not improve. Hertzberg will eat him up if Antonio refuses to support the bill or in enacted, puts union and district friendly members on the board.
This is the most damaged school district in the nation with 3/4 of a million kids under the jurisdiction of 7 board members. 6 of whom you can't even vote for!
It's also one of the most expensive. The $10,000+ plus the district gets for each student does not even include the $9.3 BILLION in bonds plus the $9.3 BILLION in matching state funds for the building program.
Will this be money well spent or money down the drain?
It's time that our elected representatives get serious about education before we lose another four generations of students to poor management and low expectations.
Ahhh, thanks. Your comments make more sense now, though you could have just linked to the text of the bill.
How embarassing for me. I have gotten too used to relying on the Committee Analysis. I didn't even look at the dates for the bill's text.
The "Just in case you can't hear it:" statement is simply precious. On the web, see, we READ things.
Anyway, after reading through most of it on leginfo all I can say is, "Holy Crap!"
I didn't know the state had the authority to do things like this! Wow.
In short, this bill allows ("upon the finding of educational failure") for the mayor to appoint LAUSD board members once their terms are up. The appointees have to be nominated by an advisory panel of 9 people (6 the mayor picks, and 3 the president of the council picks).
Hey, isn't this the sort of centralizing of authority in the school district that some people have proselytized?
I still don't get the "elitist" charge. How do communities outside of L.A. that are served by the district get served now? Is it really that good?
I have heard it said that things in the district are already based on "political paybacks" that "go to the highest bidder".
The mayor gets blamed for things that go wrong at LAUSD, yet has little real power to affect change at the district. People elect mayors that they think will improve the educational system - maybe this will introduce more accountablility.
I mean, pretty much one dude (the mayor) will have final say on who runs LAUSD. The buck can't get passed there, unless the mayor is one slick rascal.
The real question is: what did the mayor do to get this legislation drafted?
JUAN LOVES JOSE 4 EVER BABY!
Let's see here, we are smart enough to cast votes for the President of the US and the Mayor of LA but voters are not smart enough to vote for a school board candidate? That is nutz.
The bill and the idea of having the mayor take over the school board is not only undemocratic, it is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. AV (or any mayor for that matter) will simply pick his/her cronies. Nothing will change.
By the way, who is on the education panel that the mayor appointed a few weeks back to advise him education policy?
Yeah, this will fix the schools. Let's turn that power over to Tony, someone who got kicked out of every school he attended - for drugs or grades and someone who is extremely proud of his 1.7 UCLA GPA. Maybe if he had passed the bar in one of his five tries he would have some credibility, but that didn't happen either.
Senator Romero, see what you get when you over extend your lips to kiss ass. In Today's Times:
"After his election, Villaraigosa testified before Romero's Senate Select Committee on Urban School Governance in mid-June, saying the mayor of Los Angeles should "be able to appoint all school board members, and be held accountable for improvement in achievement and the quality of instruction in the schools. Two weeks after Villaraigosa's inauguration on July 1, Romero introduced SB 767, which would give the mayor the power to appoint a majority of school board members.
But Villaraigosa reacted coolly to the legislation, and the fate of Romero's bill is now uncertain"
See what happens when you blindly follow someone who would say and do anything to be in the spotlight. Just like Huizar, "I'll tell you what you want to hear but don't hold me to it!" Just another Parke Skelton blunder.
So, what is Huizar's stance on this bill or mayoral take over of District? My guess is his position is whatever AV's position is.
I know Chris, and he's wrong on this issue. Let the President's Joint Commission on LAUSD Governance finish its work first ! There are many competent people on that Commission, and they will suggest some sweeping changes by June 2006.
Romero, like most politicians that lack creativity, is just trying to take credit for something that others are working on.
Tony the Liar has cold feet because he was privy to the poll results that Huizar's campaign conducted. He wouldn't touch LAUSD with a ten foot poll now. Look at all the other Latino elected officials that dabbled with LAUSD politics,
Julian Naza - ran for mayor twice, lost.
Larry Gonzalez - ran for city council, lost. Then he ran for school board again and lost.
Leticia Quezada - ran for congress, lost.
Vicky Castro - ran for Assembly, lost.
Funny thing is Pacheco was involved in the Molina campaign when she defeated Gonzalez and in the Becerra campaign when he defeated Quezada. Not only does Nick have more successful experience as an elected official, he has expereince in defeating failed school board members.
If Tony claims responsiblity for LAUSD, what do you think will happen to his chances for defeating Schwarzeneggar?
Embarrassing for Antonio this morning that Gloria Romero has to send him a letter asking him to take a stand and state whether he supports her bill or not. Why all of a sudden is Antonio afraid? This was his big campaign issue to get parents to get their vote.
Tony the Liar is afraid because the Governator will sign this bill even before it gets to his desk. What better way to muzzle his most serious threat than by making this influential Hispanic eat his own words. He'll hang LAUSD around Tony's neck until the drop out rate drops to less than 1% - the current drop out rate at Tony's son's private school.
What's next on mayor's broken promise tour? How about that state of the art transportation system he promised. So far it's only been a press conference to get people to ride the bus, not very state of the art, is it?
In response to ubrayj02:
The issue of elitist refers to the fact that the district serves numerous cities outside of Los Angeles. These are hard working communities who depend on a quality education to move their children forward to a better life. These communities have no say in who becomes Mayor in Los Angeles because they live in cities like Carson, Huntington Park, West Hollywood and South Gate.
Although they may see all the nice commercials that would make a crony look like a saint, they cannot vote for that star struck crony.
Where is the accountability to these hard working tax payers who have demonstrated over the years that they support the district by voting overwhelmingly for district construction bonds.
To have the Mayor of Los Angeles appoint 6 people and the Council President 3 to supersede and ignore hundreds of thousands of voters outside LA is elitist, undemocratic and ill willed at best.
This bill should die and the Mayor should strike the stake straight through the heart by saying he supports more accountability but this is not the democratic or reasonable way to go about it.
Although the current system that allows for people to vote for their board members now is not perfect, it is better than having a stranger, (yes this is what the Mayor of LA is to many people outside the city) determine who gets to play politics on a school board and worse determine the future of generations to come.
The education governance committee be allowed to do thier work and breaking up the district and creating smaller districts run by local communities should be on the table for discussion.
If that were to happen, let the City of LA create a school board where the Mayor appoints whoever he wants, qualified or nor not, depending on the size of the contribution, volunteers offered or ass kissing they do, but do not screw around with other communities children.
Maybe a Southeast, City of Caron, City of West Hollywood, City of San Fernando school districts may do better.
The Mayor should join the community and parents in taking on UTLA with that project.
SB 767 should not get out of committee.
Just some thoughts.
To keep it short and sweet, all this bill is doing is adding more bureaucracy to a crumbling system. It just places a band-aid to a cancerous tumor.
I had heard that the Education Advisory Panel was simply set up by AV. I heard nothing of the Council President appointing anyone.
Who is on this Advisory Panel?
There are two bodies recently created.
The Mayor has appointed advisors to adivse him on education and the Council President and LAUSD President (Padilla and Huizar) created and appointed a 26 member commission to look at LAUSD Governance.
SB 767 is premature. Sen. Romero willhave an uphill battle and I think she will end up with on a list of legislative blunders for this rushed and not so well thought out bill.
Everyone agrees LAUSD is in bad shape but this bill goes in the wrong direction.
And as it relates to two additional seats, that is baloney. You are going to be have everyone city and community outside LAUSD politicking to have someone from there area on the board. What kind of Democracy is that?
Previous blogger: The Mayor has appointed advisors to adivse him on education .... who are these advisors?
The only one I know of is Carolyn Webb de Macias who has taken a leave from her job at USC to take the post of education advisor for the Mayor.
I beleive there are a few others who he has appointed.
Politix:
Why doesn't the Senator ask for her committee to run LAUSD from Sacramento, maybe she has a better idea on how to run the district and maybe she can appoint her brilliant staff to run it. Could it get worse?
politix,
That is interesting. I just spent the last 30 or 40 minutes looking through Senator Romero's incoming campaign contributions on the Secretary of State's web-site. I didn't see contributions from anyone or any group that stood out to me as being from unions or the education industry (except for some Faculty of Community Colleges group, or something like that).
I would assume that this means she is personally insulated from unions and other groups interested in maintaining their grip on LAUSD from witholding campaign contributions in 2006 (is this when her next election is?). I don't think other Senators and Assemblymembers will have a similar sort of insulation.
My intuition tells me that SB 767 isn't going to go that far.
Unfortunately Miguel is gone (RIP) her patron saint among other things and she is all alone.
To those that say this is "wasteful", well I think you might need some perspective on the issue. It costs the state about $5,000 to create a bill, and more for amendments, etc. - but legislators get to make scads of them. Dozens (hundreds?) of pieces of legislation like this get introduced every year, and they get frozen in limbo just as fast as they were introduced.
I might be mistaken, but by taking an existing bill and completely amending it Romero might have actually saved some "money" (legislators have a funny money "account" with the state).
In the end, these costs might be deemed "wasteful" - but this is the way our system works. Legislators introduce all sorts of wild ideas and, the concept is, they get their ideas screened and vetted to give the public the best laws people can create. It seems a noble enough idea.
Sorry to go on about this, I just have gotten tired of reading/hearing the shrill and politically worthless, cries of, "Waste!" If you want to be a gadfly, at least invest some time in coming up with a worthwhile, and more specific, political attack.
>> SB 767 is premature. Sen. Romero willhave an uphill battle and I think she will end up with on a list of legislative blunders for this rushed and not so well thought out bill.
Nothing is premature anymore. When your a parent looking down the barrel of an LAUSD education for your child you want solutions NOW!
Enough with these committees. This districts undoing is a result of its unmanageable size, its committees, its boards, its unions and administrative interests.
If Antonio wants to punt, then he becomes a lame-duck mayor from this moment on leaving the next election wide open.
Hertzberg had answers during the campaign and I'm sure he wouldn't be looking for a way to duck the issue. Here is a column he wrote yesterday.
Some of the advisors are:
Anne Basallaje- Asian Pacific Legal Center
Judy Burton- Alliance for College Ready Public Schools
Maria Casillas- Families in Schools
Yvonne Chan- Vaughn Learning Center
Ramon Cortines- ex-LAUSD
Johnny Griggs
Genethia Hayes- ex LAUSD
Graciela Italiano-LA Universal Preschool
Miranda Ra'oof- Manual Arts
Virgil Roberts- LEARN/LEAP
Gloria Romero is looking for another sound-byte!
dcoffin get a clue
dcoffin,
Who in the hell do you think is advising MAV on education? Of course, Huggy-bear, dumbass!
politix r u a romero staffer....such insight and wisdom
I agree they should fire the superintendent and appoint the Mayor and while they are at it maybe they can appoint the Mayor Supreme Leader, Pope, Head Hancho, the Big Cheese and The Man.
>> Who in the hell do you think is advising MAV on education? Of course, Huggy-bear, dumbass!
Is he doing it through the Daily News?! What a hoot.
Memo to Antonio - - - - - - - - -
Advice on dealing with public education crisis. - rmh
Huizar has been working on "fixing" LAUSD for the past two years.
As Dr. Phil would say, "Hows that working form you, hoss?"
(Now AV's trying to help him "fix" the CD14 council race).
Just get it over with Tony, appoint AV-lite to the post and say Pacheco's "not qualified, because he's not on MY team."
To hell with democracy, we all need to be on the same TEAM, Chairman Mao (I mean MAV).
>> Huizar has been working on "fixing" LAUSD for the past two years.
I think many school board members go in with good intentions but its' hard fix anything when you've been kneecapped by the UTLA and the downtown district administration.
If you guys feel that strongly about it, why don't you contact the committee memebers who will vote on this?
Isn't the deadline for passing legislation coming up at the end of August? SB 767 will probably have to wait until the next half of the session begins. Maybe the break will give the bill, and its backers, some time to gain some momentum. Or maybe it will give legislators time to earn some campaign cash making amendments or promising to kill it.
MAV's response is stradegy! C'mon folks, you can see it a mile away.
With Wesson coming aboard, it's another vote to take over, but he has to be patient to make sure he has all the votes!
If passed, the measure would take effect Jan. 1. It stipulates that upon the finding of "educational failure," the school board would be expanded from seven to nine members and the mayor could fill vacancies by appointment.
The appointment of a school board member or the superintendent would be subject to approval by a majority vote of the City Council.
The problem with the LAUSD is that seven part-time board members are overseeing the largest public works program in the country at $14.4 billion and an operating budget larger than most countries at $6.65 billion.
Clearly, the dropout rate in the LAUSD is disastrous, but I believe it is being computed incorrectly. The computation being used by some folks and by Senator Romero is a computation of the difference between kids enrolling in the ninth grade and kids that graduate. If you look at that gauge, the numbers are over 50 percent. It’s disastrous. However, that formula doesn’t take into account that you have sons and daughters of migrant workers, and immigrant families who, for instance, often times come and go. We have no statistics on people who, for instance, sign up for high school in the ninth grade but then move to Arizona. Or Nevada. I think a better gauge is if you look at the number in 12th grade, and the number of kids who graduate.
Bottom line is that our schools are failing because of money? In the 70's, the LAUSD was seen as a model school district. And, in the 70's, California ranked 3rd or 4th in the U.S. in per-pupil spending.
I don’t see where MAV appointing members or electing board members helps the classroom teachers. How does it put more money in the classroom, how does it increase per-pupil spending from 44th in the state to first in the United States? It doesn’t.
>> If you guys feel that strongly about it, why don't you contact the committee memebers who will vote on this?
Because this has been going on for twenty years. Yet another committee (YAC) is just YAC. No tangible results.
Structural change is necessary.
Is Romero lokking for another Sugar daddy or mommy, if she bends that way.
Hey does everyone know that Chief Parker also doubles up as Cyberlady.
dcoffin,
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant:
Contact/lobby the Senate Committee members who will vote to pass or table this legislation. If you can bring any pressure to bear on those voting, then you can get your way (for the most part) in Sacramento.
Yeah, right... "parents" handed Huizar all that money, running unopposed, $25 at a time.
(NOT!)
If you think it's about accountability of bureaucrats, then you're as a big a problem as those making the decisions.
Money is the largest reason why the schools are failing! CA is #44 out of 50 states in per-pupil spending. Increase additional monies to education and see what happens!
California vs. the National Average
In 1970, California spent $400 more per pupil annually than the national average.
In 2002, California spent $300 less than the national average.
Yeah, money will fix everything. Get out of here.
It fixed the roof over my home. I agree, tell Arnold to give back the 2 billion the voters allocated for education when we voted for Prop 98!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For those of you tired of LAUSD schools in CD 14, Academia Avance in Highland Park has 30 open slots for 6 and 7 grade.
Avance is offering a small class size, extended school hours taught by credential teachers.
By the time a student graduates, they will have exceeded all of the University of California class requirements, with emphasis on the development of successful life-long learning habits. This is combined with the application of learned concepts via projects, internships, and multi-cultural experiences.
As a small public charter school, Academia Avance offers an excellent tuition-free education in a safe nurturing environment, and is operated and governed with community input.
For more information on Avance, please call 213-447-4561 or send an e-mail to info@AcademiaAvance.org
Los Angeles Unified School -
$10,176.04 PER STUDENT
Los Angeles County -
$9,560.84 per student
(note: this figure would be lower if LAUSD were not included)
Five County Region -
$8,991.14 per student
(note: this figure would be lower if LAUSD were not included)
California -
$8,615.71 per student
United States -
$7,102.34 per student
ref: SSCORE.org
From a Jill Stewart column . What you don't know about the school budget.
You can never have enough money when you don't have to be accountable or when you can hide behind arcane accounting reports.
You can't blame Arnold for this fiasco.
dcoffin,
Jill Stewart is a crack whore and you know it! Let me guess, you're a Republican! You're just as bad as AH-Nold is! Give back the money, terminator!
I agree Jill Stewart is whacked on crack.
I wouldn't put my kids in Academia Avance or any other charter school until it's shown that it can perform (or at least out perform the LAUSD).
>>Jill Stewart is a crack whore and you know it! Let me guess, you're a Republican! You're just as bad as AH-Nold is! Give back the money, terminator!
Really.. explain to me that statement.
I guess only a "regressive progressive" can appreciate the great job that LAUSD is doing and that a 58,000 students each year not reaching their potential is really a good thing.
The rest of us "progressive progressives" know a quack when they see it and won't pretend it's something else.
Antonio Villaraigosa chooses to not support our public schools.
From this point on, HE IS A LAME DUCK MAYOR. He can spin it anyway he wants but he has back tracked on his campaign promises in a big way. The $950,000 in CTA and UTLA money contributed to Antonio's campaign was a disinvestment of your tax money that was meant educate our kids.
In the meantime, the next four years will see 200,000+ students will have dropping out from LAUSD schools.
In the meantime, the LAUSD is going to ask you for more bond money (again), and I'll be looking forward to a faceoff between Hertzberg and Romero in the next run for mayor on the next election cycle.
Isn't it wonderful what kind of obstacles politicians put up in front of our communities families?!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From the LA Times (8/18/2005) Opinion section.
Skipping out on schools
THE MAYOR WILL NOT when he may. By refusing to support a bill that would effectively give him control of the schools, Antonio Villaraigosa has lost his best chance to have a major influence on the education of three-quarters of a million Los Angeles schoolchildren — and abdicated his promise to their parents.
Pushed by state Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles) to take a position on her bill to give the L.A. mayor control of the school district, Villaraigosa's office said the legislation was premature. Despite his earlier statements calling for control of the schools, Villaraigosa has soft-pedaled the subject since taking office. His spokesman said Tuesday that "consensus needs to be developed at the local level" before moving forward.
That desire is understandable, even admirable. And the Romero bill is hasty and imperfect. But this isn't the time for timidity. Waiting even one legislative session effectively means that Villaraigosa would not be able to appoint a majority of school board members — and thus exercise much control over the district — until the final years of his second term (assuming he wins a second term).
Yes, the mayor should take time to examine how he could best improve the schools. But he would have had that time even if he had supported the bill; under the measure's provisions, it would still take a couple of years for him to gain meaningful influence. The bill even includes an escape clause, leaving it up to the mayor to launch the takeover.
But none of this can happen if the legislation dies in the Senate. And Villaraigosa's lack of support just about kills its already slim chances.
To be sure, it would not have been easy for Villaraigosa to support this bill, given his relationship with the teachers union. But his strategy is hardly trouble-free: He may never achieve the broad-based consensus he seeks. The board won't voluntarily loosen its grip on the schools. The leadership of the teachers union has openly said it will never support mayoral control, which would dilute its influence. It's clear that Villaraigosa is going to have to break some eggs if he wants to cook up real school reform.
It's also true that mayoral control of schools hasn't worked in every city that's tried it. It has worked best in such cities as New York and Chicago, where decisive mayors committed to education actively sought out leadership of the schools.
The new mayor of Los Angeles isn't joining that club. Antonio Villaraigosa might want power over the schools, but he is apparently unwilling to take the political risks of fighting for it.
His reticence may please the school board and the unions, but it's a disappointment to the parents and voters who were captivated by his strong campaign stance on education.
9:34 PM
LAUSD is already underperforming, anything is better than LAUSD.
"By refusing to support a bill that would effectively give him control of the schools..."
I am disappointed that he might be reneging on a promise, but I don't think he can fix LAUSD and their problems with dropouts.
Regardless of what I think, he ran on the issue of helping our schools, now it seems he doesn't want to touch the subject. This is not good for the mayor, bad politics.
Did campaign contributions make an influence on his decision?
Would his political career be jeopardizing by taking over educational issues?
What is it Antonio? We can handle the truth.
REMEMBER I TOLD YOU GUYS VILLARAIGOSA HAD COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY PUSHERS GIVING OUT PAMPHLETS? LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED HERE? AV COMES FROM THE PEOPLES COLLEGE OF LAW - COMMUNIST EDUCATION.
Tens of thousands of Salvadoran immigrants and their children, friends and neighbors joined in the seventh annual “Salvadoran Day in Los Angeles” celebration Aug. 6-7 at Exposition Park here.
Alongside traditional folk attire were many T-shirts of Latino and North American music groups, as well as of Che Guevara and the left-progressive FMLN movement, which led the revolutionary struggle in El Salvador in the 1980s and ’90s. The FMLN remains the main opposition party in El Salvador today.
Newly inaugurated Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was warmly greeted by the crowd. His election as the city’s first Latino mayor in over a century provided added cause for celebration.
Supporters of the People’s Weekly World/Nuestro Mundo handed out copies of the paper, and while they were doing so this reporter interviewed a few participants about the situations facing Salvadorans today.
DON'T TURN THEM INTO COMMUNIST CAMPS.
Outpeform LAUSD schools? Are you kidding? Not only are gots not getting shot (ala Burbank Middle), but kids in CD14 are learning at much faster rates than the counterparts floundering in the LAUSD public schools. CD 14 demand that our kids be taught, just like they do in Brentwood and Malibu. Here are three schools within 2 miles of each other. Two LAUSD public schools and one LAUSD-affililated charter school. You tell me who's outperforming who? These stats were taken from the LA Times API index. So, maybe after looking at this data, Avance and CALS don't look so bad
Burbank (Luther) Middle
6200 Meridian St.
Los Angeles 90042
API for 2003=575
API for 2004=619
Nightingale (Florence) Middle
3311 N. Figueroa
Los Angeles 90065
API for 2003=554
API for 2004=582
California Academy for Liberal Studies (Charter)
3838 Eagle Rock Blvd
Los Angeles 90065
API for 2003=645
API for 2004=679
"but I don't think he can fix LAUSD and their problems with dropouts."
I don't think the school board either. Aside from Lauritzen, who else is a teacher? The unions focus on their teachers pay and the other side focuses on 'test' scores & rigid guidelines. Nobody ever talks about PEDAGOGY in these discussions, of which, everybody and their mother has an opinion of how to fix a school.
Enough of the MPAs and aspiring politicos on the schoolboard.
Agreed, there is not much on the topic of teaching and I commend those teachers that enter this honorable profession. One of many problems is when the school administration have become political by contributions, statements, support, and recently banners at schools. Have you seen the Huizar signs (legally?) promoting his name in LARGE LETTERING, but immediately after his name information on the first day of school is so small you have to park and then read the sign. Driving by, his name is so large you do not have to stop. My point is that Huizar and other aspiring politicos that are in our school system do not help students, teachers and their futures. Their agenda is greed and only for themselves, the good future of teaching and their students are overshadowed.
Strapped by a principal who's more concerned on test scores & usage of books, and in one of the country's most populated school (San Fernando High School) you have a teacher who serves as an example that the focus needs to be on pedagogy.
He's an Apple distinguished educator, and by far the one of the leading voices on pedagogy in the digital age. Below is the website to some of the stuff his students are doing.
http://sfett.net/
SB 767 is going to die. It is a bad bill introduced by a Senator who is clueless on how to lead!
Hi from nyc!
R2000 :O)
Xabierr becerra whos this
>> In the meantime, the next four years will see 200,000+ students will have dropping out from LAUSD schools.
And I wonder how many more LAUSD high schools will follow Crenshaws lead in the next four years Antonio?
>>(Los Angeles Times) Crenshaw High School, among Los Angeles' lowest-performing campuses, lost its accreditation this week, throwing into doubt the worth of the diplomas its future graduates will receive.
The Western Assn. of Schools and Colleges, which accredits public and private high schools in California, notified school officials Monday that the campus had been stripped of its accreditation after failing to correct what it found were persistent, widespread problems.
In a letter to the school, the association's accrediting commission said it had rejected the school because of "great concerns regarding student achievement, the implementation of a curriculum and instructional program aligned with California academic standards, and the capacity of the school to address other critical areas."
Bullshit! We DO NOT want the Mayor to appoint the school board of Los Angeles---LAUSD!
This is against our Civil Rights to vote!
To all you politicans who support the appointment by the Mayor better think twice because you will never have a political seat again for the rest of your life!
Remember the Civil Rights Movement? Well you'll have every colour of the rainbow at your offices opposing and protesting against you.
Villaraigosa you should know better!!!!
NYC public schools are run by the mob controlled by the Mayor!
Wake Up Villaraigosa!
>> I know another name for a "charter" school that the district has been using for years getting the same results, they're called MAGNETS. Why re-invent the wheel?
Ummm... Charters are not Magnets. Charters are independently run schools. Magnets are not.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home