Change The LAUSD

Whereas, “Parent and community engagement” is a stated goal of the Los Angeles Unified School District;

Whereas, the receipt of a Disruptive Person (Parent) Letter provides a barrier to a parent or community member from being fully engaged with the District;

Whereas, as of September 22, 2015, the Office of the General Counsel stated that the District does not capture “specific data on disruptive parent letters”;

If Mónica García has grown weary of the LAUSD, then why doesn’t she step aside for someone who is willing to serve the students?

In the months leading up to the March 7, 2017, LAUSD election, incumbent Mónica García has made some questionable comments about the children that she is supposed to represent. For example, in March she suggested that students requiring special education services are not “our own kids”, excluding 12.7% of the LAUSD’s population. Then in September she said that “our biggest problem is that most of our kids, all of our kids, can’t read.” If this statement is true, then García has little to show for the ten years that she has spent on the Board. More likely, this represents her disdain for the teachers of the District and their ability to succeed despite the obstacles that she has put in their way.

The LAUSD’s goal of “parent and community engagement” is stated in black and white on the District’s website. Unfortunately, the District’s actions often speak louder than those words. As an example, when the parents of children with severe special education needs lost the first round of a court case against the District, a press release stated that it was “a civil rights victory for our students”, as if these children needed to be protected from their parents. A higher court overruled this decision, but last June Mónica García and the rest of the LAUSD School Board voted to continue the court fight. Sitting across from each other in a courtroom does not count as “engagement.”

On November 16, 2016, the Office of the Independent Monitor held its semi-annual public hearings about the services provided by the LAUSD to students with special education needs. The following is a copy of my testimony before Dr. Rostetter:

When I saw your reaction to Adam’s speech, it gave me something that I haven’t had in a long time at these meetings and that is hope. It showed that you really care about what happens to our children. But Adam shouldn’t be the exception to the rule. Instead, the LAUSD shows hostility towards special education.

Mónica García said in a Board meeting just a few months ago that “I’m not about defunding special ed, I just know that we have a serious issue to how can we serve our own kids.”

Whereas, the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) states that “to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”;

"Carl Petersen, a candidate running for school board and a parent, said he asked for a public records request of the number of disruptive parent letters and received redacted notices of 486 emails involving them. 'There is no specific data for these letters,' he said.

Petersen spoke of a parent at an affiliated charter school who received a disruptive parent letter because she asked too many questions about whether the school was following proper procedures and complying with the Brown Act."

If we accept the notion that education is the great equalizer, then we must demand that all children have equal access to education. This does not mean that we should expect that every student will have the same results. However, we should expect as a society that all children are given the opportunity to reach their full potential. Unfortunately, all of my opponents do not share the view that every child is worthy of an education.

“The October staff recommendations represent a fundamental and drastic departure from the Charter School Division’s expressed values of consistency and transparency, and the District’s historic focus on student outcomes as an authorizer.”

-California Charter Schools Association (CCSA)

Both El Camino Real Charter High School (ECRCHS) and Granada Hills Charter High School (GHCHS) were originally LAUSD public schools. While charters are marketed as a way to offer alternatives to poorly performing schools, both of these schools had excellent reputations before their conversions. El Camino has won seven Academic Decathlon National Championships, both as a charter and a public school. GHCHS “had one of the best academic records in the district [prior to its conversion], but it was bothered by cuts in district funding and hampered by rules that limited its own fund-raising abilities.” Like LAUSD schools, the teachers at both schools continue to be represented by UTLA. It should be no surprise that both  of them continue to meet their academic benchmarks.

Pushback in Los Angeles

The exposure of the secret plan by billionaire Eli Broad’s Foundation to expand charters so that half of Los Angeles students would attend them, drew outrage and national attention. It also energized a pushback movement that continues to grow.

Karen Wolfe and Carl Petersen,  parent activists and bloggers, regularly report on the problems with charter schools in the area. Wolfe provides updates through her psconnectnow blog and Petersen regularly blogs for K-12 News.  Petersen’s recent series on the financial scandals at El Camino High School asked hard questions about the lack of oversight provided by the Los Angeles School Board. Petersen is running for a seat on the board in part to ensure greater oversight of charters.