David Hernandez: How to break up LAUSD
At a Valley Vote meeting Monday night (Feb 19) Tom Saenz, Mayor Villaraigosa’s Chief Legal Counsel, let it slip that if AB 1381 is defeated in court and if the reform candidates are not elected, then the Mayor will be open to breaking up LAUSD.So, my friends, if you really want reform and want smaller school districts, then vote against the Mayor's candidates and support the legal challenge to AB 1381.
We know the current challenges to LAUSD but we have only certain choices on the ballot.
So, for March 6, 2007 election vote for:
District 1: (South Central) Marguerite LaMotte.
District 3: (Valley) Jon Lauritzen.
District 5: (E. Valley / South Gate) Bennett Kayser .
District 7: (San Pedro /Watts) Jesus Escandon versus Neal Kleiner.
Posted by Mayor Sam @ 2/21/2007 08:06:00 PM
15 Comments:
Very much like David Hernandez to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
If we elect Tamar & Williams we get better than the crap we got, but let's settle for crap at the crazy idea break-up will occur.
L-A-M-E A-S-S I-D-E-A
and don't believe anything you read in the LA Times.
This video highlights their (and council's) most embarassing moment of 2006.
I just pissed myself again, it gets funnier every day that goes by.
it features an all star line up of Eric G, Dave Grohl, Janice Hahn, Greig Smith, Matt Dowd, Zuma Dogg, Ed Reyes, rogue cop Landry, Bill Rosendahl, Michael Hunt, and our favorite photographer from the LA Times.
in fact Matt got ejected from chambers and ZD was arrested within an hour of this film being shot, so the revenge was as sweet as it was swift.
Mayor Villaraigosa, Thomas Saenz, lets begin the breakup now. Your staff knows who I am and I would be very happy to share with you my ideas.
We cannot continue to lose 30 thousand kids a year in this district. Communities can't take it, the economy can't take it, employers can't take it, families can't take it.
You don't get it. It's not about improving education. It's about getting control of a $7 billion budget, in order to have something to trade for more campaign contributions for higher offices.
Prior to the AB1381 deal being cut by MAV and his buddies in the assembly, he had a foursome power lunch with Arnold, Keith Richman and George Runner. At that lunch, MAV and Arnold were told AB1381 was unconstitutional and would not stand up in court.
A deal was offered to MAV that the Republicans would support his bill if after five years he agrees to break up the district. After munching, MAV excused himself and took his new found leverage and made the deal with the Dems who had opposed it prior to lunch.
Now his legal eagle, Mr. MALDEF Tom Sanez is trying to say it is the LAUSD Board who is being obstructionist and blocking reform.
Sorry Tom, you vatos knew going in that you were violating the State Constitution. It is also a disgrace that Arnold was complicit in the violating of our rights. I guess he is more of a politician than he believes.
Now it is time to look for the smoking gun behind the 600% pay increase for LAUSD Board members.
Up until now the Mayors attack has been limited to AB1381, Measure L and his school board candidates.
But one thing MAV still had to contend with is that in spite of the LAUSD boards short comings, the Mayor was still getting much more bad press and has a public opinion standing just above Hugo Chavez. After all, he is at the top of the food chain and is the lead dog in a city plagued with crime, gangs, traffic and homelessness. No matter where you look, he has failed.
So, how do we get bad press against the school board on the front page and in the editorial sections? Easy, you get an ally to introduce a proposal to increase LAUSD Board members pay from $24,000 a year to $170,000. And it worked!
Here is a challenge to you investigative reporters, connect the dots and we will be honoring you at a fancy lunch at the Biltmore.
To 10:09
you wanna sound real smart and be a complete idiot at the same time.
Be the idiot that wrote the post at 10:09.
Do you understand buddy that merv dymally voted against ab 1381 and supports that idiot marguerite laMotte.
But according to you this is all about some master stragegy -- don't make me laugh, oh wait you did.
Sam -- THE IDIOTS here on this blog are true morons.
Take it easy, it will be a long night with your blood pressure up so high.
Do you mean to say politicans can't change positions if it is in their best interest? Can't they cover their bets and play both sides?
After all just look at what took place in the North East San Fernando Valley between Richard, Cindy and Felipe.
And yes I do believe MAV is a sharp enough politican to cover all bases in getting what he wants.
So, for now, get some rest, or it will be a long night.
The last thing I want to see is a break up of the entire district. If LAUSD starts compartmentalizing segments of Los Angeles and the Valley, I will be forced to homeschool my kids or move to Ventura County. LAUSD gives me choice, and I have yet to see a breakup plan that didn't totally hose the opportunities my kids have now.
If you want more of the same, vote Galatzan.
If you want more political tomfoolery, vote Galatzan.
If you want to turn LAUSD over to Villaraigosa and all the downtown developers vote Galatzan.
If you want a school board member who will run for City Council in two years, vote Galatzan.
Tom Saenz is a douche.
"School boards essentially should be lay boards - people who approach it not as professional politicians but as concerned parents, grandparents and businesspeople," Tokofsky said.
Tokofksy just said that being a concerned parent is a worthy qualification...yet Jon Lauritzen has run for numerous offices over several years finally getting lucky with the school board seat.
Tokofsky in other words just said Vote Galatzan.
Too bad for people like Smiley. They are wrong.
Thanks for this. Anytime I'm in doubt about how to vote on something, I see what Hernandez says -- and run fast in the opposite direction.
No one more out of touch with L.A. reality, not recent years anyway.
I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning...
Smarten up you guys. The real culprit is the federal No Child Gets Ahead law and its savage insistence that all districts follow state mandates- then our equally savage state insists on a primitive course of study- then our limbic-brained leaders and wannabes insist that all kids go to 4 year colleges that then drop them out at a rate worse than they dropped HS. Meanwhile those same barbarians can't do the Algebra that they insist our 13 year-olds need to "succeed."
So to solve this they want to create a bunch of savage little nation-districts and a slew of new school boards, all swinging their clubs at the parents, kids, and teachers while the edu-thugs in DC and Sacramento lick their lips.
Sick.
Louis Pugliese
LAUSD candidate, district 3
SmartenUPLa.com
The only way to get the public back into the public schools is to break up LAUSD. A good example is the continued "white flight" in Westchester area schools near L.A. Airport. White parents in Westchester don't feel that the quality of education and physical school security is good enough for their children, so these White parents put their children in private schools.
Black parents who feel that their local schools don't provide a high quality education and a safe environment send their children to Westchester High because these Black parents feel that Westchester has a better academic reputation and is in a good neighborhood.
Latino parents have the same feelings as Black parents and also send their children to Westchester.
How is this downward spiral in public education stopped? The answer is local control. LAUSD covers an area even larger than the City of LA. If there can be a dozen smaller school districts where local parents have can the opportunity to serve on their local school board, then perhaps all parts of a former LAUSD will see better academics and increased campus safety. Maybe then children won't have to get on a bus to go to school. A good education should be walking distance away.
Let me tell you, as an LAUSD employee, that the biggest obstacle to public participation in the Board is the fact that being a full-time board member doesn't even pay enough to rent an apartment in the City of Los Angeles. It is designed to keep only the married, upper middle class in control.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home