Top

news

Stories

 

Insiders Versus Charters at LAUSD

Strings were pulled, and Ramon Cortines was stopped by his own Board of Education

Next year, almost 40,000 children will be detached from the Los Angeles Unified School District, their 30 schools turned over to groups of teachers and a handful of charter-school organizations. But what might have been applauded as dramatic reform has instead left the school district with a new black eye.

Three of the region's best-known charter-school operators were shut out of the hard-fought and highly politicized competition to run the 18 new and 12 underperforming schools, when the seven-member LAUSD Board of Education snubbed Superintendent Ramon Cortines, rejecting key elements of his "Public School Choice" proposal.

His reform plans were quashed by politics and horse-trading, with only two members of the Board of Education — the Eastside's Yolie Flores and the San Fernando Valley's Tamar Galatzan — fully backing Cortines.

Only four schools will be turned over to experienced charter groups with solid track records in education. The other 26 schools are almost all being handed to untried teacher-led groups backed by United Teachers Los Angeles, which opposes the charter movement.

The Board of Education's majority vote was widely seen as a capitulation to the status quo. Critics questioned why the board handed an unevenly performing elementary school to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's Partnership for Los Angeles Schools — itself a troubled group with no track record — while turning dozens of dysfunctional schools over to teacher-led groups even though some critics see poor districtwide teaching as the root of LAUSD's education problems.

Flores, who has emerged as a surprise reformer demanding change, says the Board of Education had an "implicit agreement" to trust Cortines' recommendations and back up his push for charters — until politics took over. (Other members insist no such arrangement was made.)

Flores says the message from the political tea leaves became clear when School Board Member Steve Zimmer, representing the Westside — a charter-school skeptic who taught in LAUSD — was joined by Marguerite LaMotte of South Los Angeles, Nury Martinez of the northeast San Fernando Valley and Richard Vladovic of the Harbor area, in ousting Inner City Education Foundation Public Schools from the competition.

Those four also formed a bloc with Board President Monica Garcia against letting a charter group run two of the five small schools at the new Esteban Torres High School complex on the Eastside.

According to Flores, union leaders including Maria Elena Durazo, head of the powerful Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, as well as the UTLA and trade unions, vigorously lobbied her and other board members about which group should be handed control of Barack Obama Middle School in South Los Angeles and the Esteban Torres High School complex.

After she publicly backed Cortines' shake-up plans to bring in respected charter-school reformers like Green Dot Public Schools, which has founded 18 independent high schools, the unions made a last pitch to Flores. She says they characterized the popular charter-school movement as a "privatization" of education and insisted that the concept of teacher-led "pilot schools" was just as good. Every board member, she says, came under similar pressure.

"We knew from the beginning there was a lot of push back from the unions," says Flores, who has grown increasingly independent since Villaraigosa helped to underwrite her election to the School Board in 2007.

"There were calls being made and meetings with every board member," Flores says. When she privately challenged School Board President Garcia over what was unfolding, Flores says, Garcia had a "very different viewpoint," arguing on behalf of a plan for five "pilot schools" at the Esteban Torres site to be controlled by a teacher-led group that was not supported by Cortines.

Says Flores: "I responded, 'Look at the merits, the track record of (the established charter groups') success. You just said you trust the superintendent, yet you reject his recommendations. That's inconsistent.'"

Garcia introduced the key, controversial motion that withdrew from contention Green Dot and other major charter schools backed by Cortines.

LaMotte, Martinez and Vladovic did not return calls for comment. But Garcia says she disagrees with Flores because she believes that higher graduation rates and other improvements in student achievement will arrive more quickly on the heavily Latino Eastside through the use of teacher-led academies. "The key point is that community members have fought for changing the Eastside, and teacher leaders are owning the change," she explains, calling the untested experiment in teacher-led academies "in-district" reform.

Garcia dismisses those who criticize "pilot" schools as a union scheme to fight reform, saying UTLA doesn't even fully back that relatively modest idea. She adds that charters have their place, and she did vote against the UTLA's effort to prevent the charter group ICEF Public Schools from running part of Barack Obama Middle School. She also backed two charter schools in her district.

Zimmer similarly tells the Weekly that while he was lobbied hard by UTLA and ultimately delivered much of what its president, A.J. Duffy, wanted, he also angered UTLA by supporting two small charters, Camino Nuevo Charter Academy and Para Los Niños.

Zimmer says charters should reach a high achievement bar, and he believes the pilot school plans for the Esteban Torres complex were superior. "There was a lot of pressure from UTLA not to vote for a single charter," Zimmer notes in his defense.

1 | 2 | Next Page >>
 
  • 03/30/2010 12:30:00 AM

    Is Beth Barrett an employee of the DFER/DLC? This piece would be laughable if it wasn't for the very real lives being shattered by Yolie Flores-Aguilar, Inc. and Steve Barr's high handed school privatization efforts. While Barrett was writing this obsequious homage to Barr's corporate CMO charter empire, did she have the presence of mind to follow current events? Did she notice the private, unelected Green Dot board just decided in secret to close down Animo Justice HS and is threatening the same with Animo Film & Theatre Arts? Hundreds of students have been displaced from the only Green Dot Public [sic] School that serves appropriate numbers of ELL and Special Education children. Is this the kind of "reforms" the reactionary Flores-Aguilar has planned? After all, we know Yolie's discredited quick fix solutions don't include educating every child. An organization with Green Dot's level of incompetence and callous towards the population it serves should have been handed another taxpayer funded school in Esteban Torres? Is Barrett serious? Did she attend the board meeting where the former Congressman himself said he didn't want corporate charters taking over his namesake school? Let's look at what Barrett calls "experienced charter groups with solid track records in education." Green Dot sports three schools in the lowest 100 APIs in Los Angeles County. They also feature five schools in the lowest 35 average SAT scores in Los Angeles County [Los Angeles Times http://bit.ly/cBH5VW]. What’s more, while corporate charters claim high graduation rates and college placement, it turns out they are passing students who aren’t ready. For example let’s look at Animo Venice Charter High School. Of the Green Dot students admitted to the CSU system in 2008 67% WERE NOT PROFICIENT IN MATHEMATICS. [CSU database http://bit.ly/b2WrvP] This is compared to just 49% of the much maligned LAUSD students. Moreover, only 33% of the children graduating the Green Dot corporate factory school were proficient, while children attending public schools comprised a much more respectable 51%. Suddenly all the smoke, mirrors, and snake oil voucher-charter advocates like Beth Barrett, Flores-Aguilar, and Steve Barr are peddling are exposed for what they really are. Newsflash to Beth Barrett -- the well heeled charter executives and their billionaire bankrollers are THE INSIDERS. Factual reporting starts with research, try it sometime.

  • nick richert 03/25/2010 10:12:00 PM

    I think there is an anti-teacher bias in your article. Take, for example, the line: "some critics see poor districtwide teaching as the root of LAUSD's education problems." By "some critics," I guess we mean Beth Barrett, because no one else is quoted... but how do we get poor teaching in the LAUSD, and how do we get good teaching elsewhere? Could it be teacher support, or lack thereof? All the research I've read points to teacher collaboration being the key to good schools. Conside the book "Whatever it Takes," by Richard DuFour. In the book, DuFour looks at the schools in low performing communities that outperformed even schools in affluent areas, and finds the commonality to be professional communities in which teachers identify the needs of their students and work together to restructure their schools accordingly. In the LAUSD, teacher collaboration is discouraged. I am a teacher at an LAUSD high school, and I was sent a letter signed by the principal and the literacy coach telling me an English Department meeting I tried to hold could not discuss curriculum. We only discuss curriculum at official department meetings, held once every two weeks for an hour and a half, led by the department chair according to an official agenda which no teachers were involved in setting. In this environment, there is no collaboration. The experiences of teachers is not used schoolwide to implement change. Our schools are hierarchical, with those least in the classroom at the top, dictating to those most in contact with students at the bottom. And at the bottom, the teachers are kept apart from each other. The quote from Steve Barr is typical of administrators who like to see teachers as standing in the way of education. "There's such a consistent pattern when push comes to shove. The [educators] become so much more important than the parents — and the kids." It benefits charter operators like Barr to divide teachers from students and parents, making both weaker. When teachers, parents, and students are on the same side, they can make their own decisions. It's not clear to me what an administrator is needed for in this picture. I'm sure Barr is making more money than any ten teachers together. Ten teachers, put in charge of a school, would be a better use of resources.

  • Jo Lewis 03/22/2010 7:39:00 AM

    As a teacher for LAUSD for more than thirty years at 93rd St. School, 109th St. School and Catskill Ave. School, I have watched very hard working and skillful teachers not only deliver excellent lessons throughout the school day, but spend hours after school tutoring, preparing for the next day/week/month, and/or teaching children volleyball, football and other game skills. I have also met a few teachers that should have chosen another profession, usually because they lacked effective classroom management skills. But these were/wre very few in number and do not merit the shrill outcry that comes from those who seem bent on destroiying public education. Our tesst scores continue to rise even though most teachers would prefer a curriculum based less on the standardized test questions and more on fostering creativity, love of learning, social responsibility, and a greater awareness of the world around us. Teachers should play a greater role in determining the depth and breadth of the curriculum rather than being the recipients of a top-down approach that dictates what the curriculum will be. We also need more support from parents, but this is often difficult because both parents work to support the family or a single parent has little time to give to a child after a long work day. Even so, we know that parents are/should be a child's first and best teacher. It's time to stop blaming teachers for the ills of society and pretending that giving our schools away to private entities will improve the educational system. We spend about ten times as much on incarcerating prisoners than we do on educating our children. We need to rethink our priorities.

  • Leonard Isenberg 03/21/2010 10:04:00 AM

    Neither charters or teacher/administrator groups address the underlying problem of SOCIAL PROMOTION. How are single subject secondary credentialed teachers going to teach students, the vast majority of which have elementary English and math skills, and teach a substantive course that assumes these skills have already been mastered? www.perdaily.com talks about the reality of what is going on at LAUSD. Address this reality and change is possible. lenny@perdaily.com

  • Mister Dadier 03/20/2010 1:00:00 PM

    I am a high school teacher. I largely agree with RobE's comments. I no longer read the Daily News, at all because of their mis-informed, reactionary stance on socio-economic-political issues. I am close to boycotting the LA Weekly on the same grounds. I always thought the LA Weekly was a possible bastion of rational, liberal thinking that realized the importance of a public mission for, at least, some services- education included. The charter school movement seeks to do what public schools have been entrusted not to do- that would be to discriminate. Their selectivity puts them at an unfair advantage. I actually think we should discriminate as a public educational institution. Low performing, incorrigibly delinquent students should actually be sent to charter schools. Charter schools should be filling a second tier service to educating those students that don't show the ambition to perform to society's normative expectations of academic performance. Large, comprehensive high schools have too much to offer for gang-bangers, delinquents and truants to be allowed to take advantage of to disrupt the quality of what can be offered there. Comprehensive public high schools can offer a wide array of Advanced Placement classes, technological, technical, artistic and athletic programs that smaller schools cannot. Students not seeking to take advantage of such programs due to their delinquency, truancy or discipline problems should be sent to a second-tier instructional programs that charter schools should justly provide. No highly qualified teacher should want to work for less than what a union of highly-qualified professional teachers can provide. That's what the parents intuited and opted for when the alternatives for instructional programs were presented. It will ultimately come to this. Highly qualified teachers should not teach low-performing students. Charters already understand this and are seeking to capitalize on this "weakness" in the public schools' mission. Public school teachers cannot allow this disadvantage to be capitalized on. The most qualified teachers already teach at public schools. We should be relegating the charter schools to these "second tier" students. If the charter school movement does not allow us to serve all of our clients equally then we shouldn't.

  • RobE 03/13/2010 6:25:00 AM

    First, the LA Weekly threw out the baby with the bathwater here with regard to teachers. Just because teachers want to run some schools (which I would like to see them given the power to do in order to make them directly own the results of their instructional methods rather than being able to blame the idiots at the LAUSD office for failure) does not inherently mean those schools will not provide high quality educations to students at those campuses. Indeed, while there are incompetent teachers, they are a small minority of the total instructor pool. Moreover, you have LAUSD teachers working now in charter schools. So using the LA Weekly's logic, how are those schools able to succeed? Secondly, all national proposals for fixing our educational system omit sanctioning school boards who don't do the job they have been entrusted with. Yeah, school board members are elected, but the information provided to the electorate about the activities and record of each candidate is generally so sparse that most people just forego turning out to vote. And many of the candidates run unopposed. Thirdly, the time for amateurs running our schools has to end. The 21st century is too technological, the economic and international environment too competitive and change too rapid to keep allowing folks who have never taught one minute in a classroom to oversee local education. The LAUSD should be abolished, its office and other non-campus assets sold off, all administrators fired (nobody is more useless on this planet than a school administrator, except for a school board member) and teachers put in charge of each campus (through five or seven person committees). Also, tenure would not be awarded unless the teacher has at least five years of fulltime instructional experience and discipline will be decided by teachers, with said punishments carried out by a trained subcontracted discipline officer (good job for ex-law enforcement or military). Those who are members of gangs would not be permitted on any regular campus, but in special educational facilities for them and they would be put under police supervision. The governor should also be made directly responsible for educational results over the state of the whole. Tests scores go up, they can run for another term or another state office. Scores go down he/she is deemed ineligible for re-election and a run at any other state office. So then you have accountability at the very top of the state hierarchy and for educational practicioners without the petty games and corruption you get with school boards.

  • William Joseph Miller 03/12/2010 4:15:00 AM

    Beth Barrett, like LAUSD, like every other educational critic, operates on the premise that teachers are accountable for student test scores. For real??? I retired in 2007 after spending a lifetime teaching in inner city schools in Los Angeles. Before I retired, LAUSD forced me to administer 2 or 3 bench mark exams in preparation for the BIGGIE at the end of the year. I resented losing teaching time, but found ways to utilize bench mark exams to prove a point about accountability. I told my students that I would personally hand-score the exams myself, using an answer key provided by LAUSD. I told them that they had to get a 70% or above on the benchmark exams in order to pass my class. If they failed to reach the magic number, they had to report to after-school remedial sessions. Students who scored above 80% and above 90% got extra points added to their grades. I also set up a hip-hop style honor roll with the names of students who excelled on the bench mark exams. The first time I administered the bench mark exam, the results were terrible. But I persisted. And every time I administered the bench mark exams, the number of failing students decreased and the class room honor role got longer. What might this experiment prove about accoutability? First of all, about 20 to 25% of the questions on the benchmark exams were defective. They either had two correct answer or no correct answers. In some case the "correct" answer was totally indefensible - it was correct only because the people who designed the test said it was. Forcing students to guess what a test maker thinks is the correct answer is a lousy way to educate children. I simply copied the defective questions and explained why the questions were defective and sent a blistering letter to all the appropriate higher-ups as well as the firm that designed the tests. This is one reason that the folks who make the standardized test do not permit teachers to read or examine the tests they design. My students' responses during my remedial sessions were also revealing. "OH! I knew that was the correct answer, but I didn't mark it down because I thought the answer was too easy." OR "I didn't read the passage. I just marked down anything for an answer." OR "I didn't bother to read the questions." What does this tell us about the way that students perform on standardized tests? We need to scrap our testing procedures . We also need to scarap our notions of accountability. If we realy want to raise test scores, let's hod students, NOT teachers, accountable for the way they perform on standardized tests. Students should get instant feedback on their test results. Teachers should remediate students who "fail" the test. They should be able to reward students who do well. Put these practices in place and you'll get higher test scores.' P.S. I should let you know that I taught honors classes in a an inner city Magnet school. The results may not be the same for all teachers.

  • William Joseph Miller 03/12/2010 4:07:00 AM

    Beth Barrett operates on the notion that charter schools are good and public schools and teachers' unions are evil. She apparently has never heard of the Miller Law. Namely, the success of a charter school is directly proportional to the number of the students the charter school rejects PLUS the length of the waiting list. The higher the rejection rate and the longer the waiting list, the more prestigious the charter school becomes and the prestige the charter school enjoys translates into success. I should know. I spent most of my teaching career in a Magnet program in an inner city high school. I also got Honors and AP classes. I could tell my students "You CHOSE to be in my class." I had a trump card that many of my less-favored colleagues lacked. Charter schools succeed because they get to pick and choose whom they want to educate. To be sure, for the sake of PR, they may include a couple of students with 'special needs', especially if the student's parents are powerful politicians. They may include some so-called "hard-to-educate" students - especially if they can play basketball. But these students know from the get-go that if they don't produce, they'll be replaced. As further proof, I'd suggest that Ms. Barrett read an article in the latest issue of the American Prospect, by David Kipp titled "The Great School Delusion", a review of a book by Diane Ravitch. Kipp notes that KIPP "dropped or nudged out" 60 % of its students in the San Francisco Bay Area. Yet KIPP enjoys nationwide recognition, being cited as an exemplary charter school program by Evan Thomas and Pat Wingert in the latest issue of Newsweek. No one dares criticize KIPP for its 60% dropout rate. If we really want to improve public education, give them the same rules that charter schools enjoy, and force charter schools to educate the rejects from public schools - no questions asked. You'll get a complete turn-around. Is this really what Beth Barrett or LA Weekly want????

  • William Joseph Miller 03/12/2010 1:49:00 AM

    Everyone always loves to trash teachers for test scores, but has it occurred to them that the problem is the test format itself? We are in the age of the computer and the iPod, yet our testing procedures haven't changed since I was in the 7th grade, back in 1958. Remember, 1958 was the the age of that great technological breakthrough, the manual typewriter, and that all-time hit, Wake Up Little Susie. Why do we insist on using testing students in the 21st century with antiquated methods that are 50 years old???? For low-performing schools, let's put the tests on computers and pattern them after popular video games. Students could choose which test/video game they want to play, and they could rack up points for correct answers. Schools could set up all sorts of challenges and competitions. Teachers could jump into the mix as cheerleaders, go-getters, game masters or motivators. They could even disguise themselves as characters from popular video games. (If you don't think teachers would do that, guess again!!!) Instead of students taking an early nap when you're administering tests, you'd have students sitting at the edge of their seats. Who says that testing has to be an ordeal as dreadful as a root canal without novacaine? Why can't testing be fun???? The way LAUSD, LA Weekly, Arne Duncan, and Beth Barrett approaches testing shows that they are a bunch of brain dead morons.

  • William Joseph Miller 03/12/2010 1:24:00 AM

    Beth Barton's article revolves around the "same old, same old." UTLA is an organization of "lemon teachers", and the lousy test scores of LAUSD prove it. A few months ago, I issued a challenge to the Board of Education and to Ramon Cortines. I dared them to provide me with three compelling reasons why students needed to excel on the end-of-the year standardized tests they regard as the Holy Grail. I specifically told them that their reasons had to "sell" to the clientele, namely the students in the inner city high school where I once taught. In other words, they had to "keep it real." They had to "reach " the students. Surprisingly enough, I did get a response from Ramon Cortines. However, he totally disregarded my instructions about targeting the message to his audience, so his answer merited a Big, Fat F. Cortines' failure beggars the question - Why should our students care about the high stakes tests that everyone puts so much faith in? Before I retired, (in 2007), I spent years experimenting with getting high test scores on the various assessments I was forced to administer. I actually succeeded in getting high test scores if I got the test results back within a 24 to 72 hour time frame, and if I could hold the students accountable for their test performances. I could then reward students who did well and remediate and re-test those students who "failed." That formula of test-feedback-reward/or-remediate does not exist with the standardized tests. Students don't get their test scores until months after taking the test (provided they haven't moved to another school, another city, or another state.) When, or in many cases if, they get their test scores, they are in another grade. As far as they are concerned, both the test and I, their teacher, are ancient history. Besides, nothing happens if they score well or if they score poorly. So as a result, the sacrosanct tests that Cortines worships do not really measure what students have learned. Instead, they show what a bunch of blasé, bored,stree-wise know-it-all adolescents, not to mention an assortment of wanna-be taggers and out-and-out things, think about a test that is about as relevant to their daily lives as a war between cockroaches on one of the moons of Uranus. Society's sacred cows, standardized tests, are a waste of my time, my students' time, and the tax payers' money. We need to find more effective ways of evaluation student progress. P.S. I'll throw the gauntlet out to Beth Barton. You've got my email adress. Send me 3 compelling reasons why students in an inner city high school should excell on end-of-the-year tests. Remember the instructions. Remember, you are talking to students - not to me. I'll tell you whether the reasons will actually "sell"the test - and I'll be nice. I won't use the language the students would use. So come on, I'm waiting to hear from you. I'd also suggest that before you or LA Weekly trash teachers in supposedly "dysfunctional" schools, you try to teach their yourself.

  • William Joseph Miller 03/12/2010 1:14:00 AM

    Beth Barton's article about the dumb LAUSD school board fails to reveal a very inconvenient truth: the results of the advisory elections. Apparently Ms. Barton is unaware of this event, so I'll school her. Before the decision to hand over the 30 "troubled", underperforming schools to charter school operators, the community of each school held an election. The people in the community had the choice between voting for a charter school or voting for a grass-roots teacher-parent-community school plan. Even though charter school operators did everything they could to swing the elections, including providing bus transportation to the polls, the people in these affected communities voted overwhelmingly fr teacher-parent school plans, sometimes with a margin of 87%. By allowing local grass-root teachers and parents to run their schools instead of an elitist, non-community charter was simply, the LAUSD was simply echoing the voice of the people. Do Beth Barton, LA Weekly, and charter school operators harbor a grudge against grass-roots democracy?

  • John Gardier 03/11/2010 9:46:00 PM

    --- On Wed, 3/10/10, John gardier wrote: Mr. David "Rockello" Rosen: I have emailed you today (March 1,-2010, Wednesday) at approximately 1:00pm. All I would like to know is if you picked up my pay check that I accidently dropped. You was telling me this afternoon about how responsible you would be to the citizens in the nieghborhood that you serve but you can't even return a phone call to me at (213)422-2239. Thank you very much. I am looking forward to your call today. Right now it is approximately 10pm March 10, 2010 Wednesday. John Gardier Phone:(213)422-2239 Email:gardierjohn@yahoo.com Mr. David "Rockello" Rosen, Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council Candidates Mr. Rosen on March 10, 2010 Wednesday at approximatel 12:30pm. I just recieved my pay check and I was comming out of my employer office. You seemed to know that I was comming out of some type of Senior citizen center. I had my paycheck in my hand and I was just about to put it in my pocket. But you was giving me your sales speech about voting for you to the Greater Echo Park Elysian Neighborhood Council. You gave me a lot of campaign literature with your name and the name of your running mate (Erlinda L. Sorati) on the campaign literature. I was in a hurry when you were talking to me because I just missed 2 buses. I think that I could have dropped the check when you was giving me all your campaign literature in English and in Spanish. Mr. Rosen, if you have my check can you call me at (213)422-2239 and Mr. Rosen even if you don't have my check could you still give me a call. I noticed that you were following down the street as I was going to the bus stop. When I crossed to the other side of the street you were following me. I thought you just wanted to talk some more about your campaign. So I just caught the bus. I wish you would have just yelled that you have my pay check, if that's the reason you were following me. So please Mr. Rosen, call me to let me know one way or the other. Mr. Rosen I checked with my employer and she said that you did not return a check to them. Thank you very much. John Gardier Phone: (213)422-2239

 

Most Popular Stories

Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy