California wins $1.2 billion in Corinthian Colleges suit brought by Attorney General Kamala Harris, also the front runner for US Senate.

The California Attorney General Kamala Harris has won a $1.2 billion judgment against the for-profit Corinthian Colleges for predatory practices that left tens of thousands of students with large debts and useless degrees.  Students whom Corinthian had targeted for their *special characteristics* like "isolated", "impatient", "low self-esteem" folks "who have few people in their lives who care about them" according to documents Harris' office discovered.

Does the case reveal any special characteristics of Kamala Harris? That's especially important since she's running for US Senate.

She’s in the lead for the retiring Barbara Boxer's seat. In a race that not enough of us are watching, she handily beat out Orange County’s Loretta Sanchez for the State Democratic party’s endorsement last month.

Even if we were paying attention to this important election, education advocates know that an election for national office is not exactly the best venue to find out a candidate's stand on public education. With so little campaign emphasis on our cause, candidates’ actions and occasional words are open to interpretation. So what do the tea leaves say about Kamala Harris?

The bulk of the judgment in this case is loan forgiveness for former students. The rest is to punish the shyster Corinthian and try to deter other profiteers from creating business models that prey on hopeful students. That's a good sign.

The win shows Harris to be a fighter for pupils over profits, something that should help her distinguish herself to voters concerned about the privatization of public education. 

One of Harris’ Republican opponents is cringeworthy to education voters. Ron Unz is a Palo Alto software executive whose interest in education stems from his effort to obliterate bilingual education in our state. He successfully championed the 1998 “English only” ballot initiative, which the state legislature has nearly finished repealing. This has so ticked off Unz that he decided to throw his hat in the ring for the Senate seat.

So Unz can make some anti-immigrant noise, which apparently is a selling point in this reality-TV-based election season, though he has little chance of winning against either Democrat.  

The Democrats are having their own difficulty breaking through the cacophony of the presidential election. An LA Times article this week reported one third of California voters are still undecided in the Senate race that includes four Democrats. Harris polls first, ahead of Sanchez among registered voters and Harris’ take doubles Sanchez's among likely voters.

There’s no poll of education voters, but if there was, this shellacking of for-profit colleges by Kamala Harris surely would put her at the front of the class.

Why is Bernie Sanders getting a pass on public education?

Bernie Sanders voted to appoint John King as Education Secretary at a Senate committee hearing today. According to his Washington, DC Senate office, Sanders voted by proxy because he was out of town. Sanders is campaigning in Florida for the Democratic nomination for President.

Bernie Sanders’ support for John King stands in direct opposition to the thousands of online education activists who have supported his candidacy, despite little record on public education issues.

President Obama nominated King after his contentious stint as New York State Education Commissioner prompted headlines like this one in the Washington Post: If you think Arne Duncan is controversial, meet his successor.

Online education activist groups have fiercely complained about John King. Prominent blogger Anthony Cody named King’s implementation of Common Core in New York one of the “ten colossal errors” of the Common Core standards.

Another prolific blogger called the appointment of King a “tone deaf decision”, asking Do Democrats give a crap about education?

The online crew of education activists cried foul when both teachers unions endorsed Hillary Clinton. But what do they make of their candidate supporting their arch education enemy?

Radio silence.

It’s a mistake for activists to give Bernie a pass even if it’s because they really want him to become President. A campaign is precisely the time when a candidate is most likely to declare a position to which they can be held to task for the next four years. It’s the time they are the most receptive to adjusting flawed positions--especially when he or she sees you’ve got the muscle of 55,000 online activists behind you.

We don’t know much about Bernie’s k-12 education positions. He passed up an opportunity to de-fund Common Core, the nemesis of progressive education activists, and he voted for an amendment to increase testing. Maybe the few education votes in his record would have been better if he had been informed by activists who were in a position to deliver advice as well as votes. 

If Bernie becomes President and continues his current policy stands, education activists will learn they squandered their best opportunity to influence him.

Joe the Plumber takes on public education

 At Tuesday night’s CNN Town Hall in South Carolina, public education got a moment on the Democratic primary campaign stage. But what did it really tell us?

Audience member John Loveday was introduced as the principal of a charter school. He asked Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton whether she would support a longer school day or school year to keep up with India and China.

Given the limited attention K-12 schools have received in any of the presidential campaigns, education voters were glad for an opportunity to evaluate a candidate's position.

Public education advocates recognize this particular question as a talking point of Democrats for Education Reform, “Third Way” dems who seek to turn public education into a business. They're supported by disruptive innovators poised to receive massive amounts of public money to provide the services. It wasn’t surprising that this question would come from a charter administrator. You can think of it as you would if a fund manager wanting to privatize social security were to ask a candidate about collecting fees on retirement accounts.

But this guy was no banker. How much more authentic can you get than a school principal? Reminiscent of Joe the Plumber entering the public realm in 2008’s presidential race, the charter principal claimed that his school was doing something innovative--and he hoped to hear Secretary Clinton declare her support for it--and thereby her support for his enterprise.

“My charter school is unique because we are the only school in the state that offers more instructional days than required by law. We offer 230 instructional days versus the traditional 180. If you look at countries like India and China, they offer--they require--their high school students to attend 220 days on average. That’s 40 more than our high school students. Do you think that puts our students at a disadvantage and, if so, would you work with states to modernize that policy?”

Hillary Clinton answered by explaining that some kids languish when school lets out for the summer. She concluded, “I have said I want to be a good partner for educators and teachers. But I want to help them do what they know they are supposed to do. We need better and fewer tests, not more tests. We need more support in the classroom because a lot of kids come with needs.”

Activists have jumped on her remarks as a policy statement for longer school days and a shorter summer. But just like Joe the Plumber shared the spotlight with the candidate years ago, this charter principal deserves some attention, too. Is he helping the kids Clinton describes? Should a presidential candidate support innovations like his?

Well, Loveday is the principal of an online, virtual charter school which tells students, "as long as you meet the state attendance requirements in a year's time, your personal school schedule is up to you." Students “can enroll any time of the year. Our self-paced curriculum allows students to graduate early or to take the extra time they need to master a subject.”

So it’s hard to take Loveday at his word when he seems to brag about his school offering more instructional time to give American students an edge. Is his school really just taking advantage of more days of funding? We don’t know for sure without a deeper analysis.  

But the question--and the questioner--underscore something important. With “innovators” like this charter administrator at the mic, we are reminded of the smoke and mirrors that have blurred the public's view of some of the changes in education policy in recent years. In this presidential campaign, we need candidates to show they understand what is really being asked about public education before we can judge their grasp of the issue. For example, how does the goal of reaching higher standards end up meaning that 50 neighborhood schools in Chicago close? How does the promise of innovation end up meaning that public assets are sold off to private enterprise? How does the idea of school choice end up re-segregating our schools along racial lines? 

To judge who is most capable of standing up for our schools, we need to know if candidates even understand how much is at stake. For that to happen, this election must include a more vigorous education debate.

PTA adopts position against state laws - President Obama adopts position against his own education policies - What is LAUSD to do?

Now that winter has all but passed without the torrential rains we expected, Angelenos are wondering what all the fuss was about El Niño. 

The same might be said as the national standardized testing opt out movement finally reaches California. What started out in New York as a hurricane seems to have been downgraded to a chance of sprinkles here in sunny California.

But with the SBAC tests still two months away, the conversation is getting lively in school council meetings, on blogs and among policymakers.

Probably fearful of a spread of the New York movement in which over 200,000 students opted out across that state last year, the National PTA is trying to muscle parents out of exercising their legal right to opt children out of standardized tests. In January, the PTA adopted a position against state laws that give parents the right to opt out of state testing. Former US Deputy Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch says that might have something to do with the PTA receiving $1 million last October to promote Common Core assessments. This will be news to some of the less edu-policy obsessed.

Even President Obama admitted that his education policies have rained on a lot of parades, saying recently that he hears from parents who worry about "too much testing, and from teachers who feel so much pressure to teach to a test that it takes the joy out of teaching and learning. I want to fix that," he said.

The PTA says, “We highly value family engagement in education and respect the rights of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children, however,,,"

So where does that leave LAUSD? The district has issued a directive to school administrators that they must inform parents of their legal right to opt out of standardized testing, even providing school administrators with a sample letter to send to parents.  But don’t think that means LAUSD is taking a stand against standardized testing. Sources who attended a district meeting last December said that principals were warned not to let their opt out rate reach 95%. Some principals I’ve spoken to are quietly ignoring the directive. One claimed to have no knowledge of it. And some parents see the nonsense in standardized tests but know that's the #1 marketing tool for prospective parents. One parent even suggested that students should take the SBAC--and be  given community services hours for the chore. 

I'm not predicting that the testing game will get rained out here in Los Angeles, but Coffee with the Principal and other school site parent-teacher-principal meetings should get pretty lively in the next couple of months. 

Breaking news: Complaint accuses Magnolia Charters of illegal use of funds

A public school teacher and a parent in Orange County, California, filed a legal complaint today against Magnolia Charter Schools accusing the charter organization of violating state and federal law by improperly using state and federal funds, maintaining poor internal controls and financial  accounting, and utilizing nepotistic vendor selection.

The complaint describes a revolving door between the Magnolia board and its vendors, and even shared business addresses. The complaint asserts that the California Department of Education has “failed to take meaningful action” despite its own findings of misdeeds.

“It's like the state screaming, 'Come and get this money that's supposed to be for our schools. We’ll look the other way while you spend it on other things,’” said complainant Tina Andres, a Santa Ana teacher. “It just invites corruption and fraud. That’s not what charter schools are supposed to do.” Andres’ son attends a charter school in Orange County.

Andres joined Jose Moreno, an Anaheim parent, and Amsterdam & Partners LLP law firm on the complaint which was filed with the California Department of Education under the Uniform Complaint Procedure process. It can be viewed here. 

The complaint calls for a comprehensive investigation by the State Department of Education. It cites findings made last year by the state in an audit of Magnolia including that 69% of Magnolia's financial transactions were unaccounted for; that Magnolia routinely awards large contracts to vendors that have overlapping connections with their own employees and board of directors; and that Magnolia has illegally used hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to pay for visas for Turkish nationals.

The complaint states that all three of these activities are hallmarks of Gülen charters. Magnolia has denied ties to Gülen, an organization under investigation by the Turkish and United States governments.  

Magnolia is headed by Caprice Young, former president of the board of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), and founder of the powerful lobby, the California Charter Schools Association. Under Young's leadership, Magnolia runs 11 schools, including eight in LAUSD, and recently submitted petitions for eight more schools in Anaheim, LAUSD, Garden Grove, Fremont, and Oceanside. The complaint states that if all eight charter schools were to be approved, the cost to the state of California would be in the billions of dollars.

The complaint presses the regulatory authorities to take immediate action before Magnolia's additional charters could be approved. 

Journalism ethics expert says LA Times is trapped in a massive conflict of interest

A member of a facebook group that discusses education asked journalism ethics expert Peter Sussman about the LA Times coverage and posted this, shared with their permission:

"I asked a journalist friend about the ethics of the L.A. Times taking money from Eli Broad while editorializing in favor of his project. His response:

"Was I tagged because this is such a tough ethical issue to parse? It is not. With this kind of entanglement with the subject of its news stories, the Times has given up the right to expect any trust or credibility for its journalism on education. They are trapped in a massive conflict of interest, and no amount of pro forma disclosure will fix that. It's so sad to see what has happened to that once-great publication.

"You can add to the comment that trust and credibility are the life's blood of journalism, and without it, a "news" organization is no different than any other partisan in public disputes, with the added problem that there is no major paper to hold it accountable, although in this case a blogger has apparently stepped into the breach. People have jeopardized and lost their jobs for defending their editorial independence and standing up to such conflicts of interest. I haven't read the background on the issue you've highlighted, but if all your information is accurate, the Times' problem extends beyond opinions to reporting, however well-intentioned their education reporters are."

--Peter Sussman, a retired longtime San Francisco Chronicle editor who is a past co-author of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. (He was co-author of the 1996 version.)

The Los Angeles Times* backs itself into a corner in supporting Eli Broad's hostile takeover plan of LAUSD

The LA Times has written another diatribe peddling Eli Broad’s privatization plan for Los Angeles public schools (Eli is certainly getting his money’s worth in underwriting the LA Times education coverage).

“What the [LA School Board's] resolution [opposing the Broad plan] might accomplish is to continue making this a politically divisive issue. Potential donors might then decline to join the effort, but would that really be helpful to students?”

Really? Is it the democratically elected representatives’ vote to support public schools against a hostile private takeover that is the problem here? Is it LAUSD’s fault for discouraging otherwise willing donors to pay for the weaponry that would destroy its schools?

The LA Times goes on: “A better move would be to call on Great Public Schools Now [Broad's group] to provide a place at the table for the district’s new superintendent, Michelle King, to participate in the planning process. If the new nonprofit organization hopes to overcome resistance in the community, it needs to be more open about its planning and it needs to open the process to public discussion…”

Hello!

In its ongoing effort to convince the city that a huge public entity should be handed over to a private group of titans, the LA Times now suggests inviting the public official to the table to give the effort some credibility. This is the superintendent, who was appointed by the democratically elected board, to lead the public entity the titans seek to control.

As Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis has said, “You can’t have a seat at the table when you’re on the menu.”

The LA Times even suggests the plan should include funding for outside auditors.  I guess that’s to head off the mob that will cry foul at circumventing public process.

It seems the LA Times needs a civics lesson.

The things they think would make this process go better are the very things that define democratic process—the things inherent in a public school system: Public hearings. Involvement of experts. Inclusion of all stakeholders. Service to all not some.

If this group of do-gooders has such a bright idea, why don’t they come to a school board meeting, present it, and participate in the discussion that any of us does? Let’s hear a discussion about the educational value, the impact on desegregation goals, the research-based evidence, the cost, etc.

They won’t do that because they’re titans. They think they should run things without the inconvenience of public interference.

The LA Times has backed itself into a corner in advocating for the private takeover of the public school system. Now calling for a *public* process into a private takeover does not fix that.

The LA Times’ conflict of interest in promoting Eli Broad’s plan remains a problem. Just as every LA Times article about education now comes with an asterisk, so does this version of a public process.

LAUSD: What's going on in the Neutral Zone?

Before the rebranding of Eli Broad's attack on LAUSD, he had put fellow billionaire David Geffen on his team roster. Geffen and Broad teaming up would be even more serious than Broad bringing in charter vendor ExED to manage the effort. Was it even likely that Geffen would have suited up with his fellow billionaire?

“Not in a million years.” That’s what Geffen said ten years ago when Broad suggested they buy the LA Times together.

There’s no indication they’ve patched things up. So is the enemy of my enemy my friend? Could LAUSD count on Geffen’s help defending the school district?

That’s not likely either. It isn’t because Geffen is uninterested in education. Last week, the LA Times announced his $100 million donation to UCLA for a private middle and high school for the children of professors.

LA Times columnist Steve Lopez, the conscience of Los Angeles, is the only one who has cried foul. The world class public university smack dab in the middle of Los Angeles feels the need to create its own school district and LAUSD considers it a neutral zone.

Somebody blow a whistle!

Forget for a moment how the children of professors would strengthen LAUSD’s nearby University High School in terms of seats in classrooms and the funding that comes along with them. Though that is an important loss that seems to have been written off.  But why is LAUSD not bending over backwards to forge relationships with this brain trust for research, policy advice, and vision? It’s a neutral zone, not a gated community.

UCLA is the university that Gary Blasi has called home for decades. Blasi’s scholarship, policy advice and legal services include improving learning opportunities in substandard schools, racial and other stereotypes, and how large bureaucracies can better respond to the needs of poor and disabled people.

UCLA is the same university that just recruited Pedro Noguera, famed scholar in community development, youth violence, and race and ethnic relations. He wrote a book called Schooling for Resilience: Improving the Life Trajectories of African American and Latino Boys. The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District has already enlisted Noguera's help.

Finally, UCLA is the same university where John Rogers’ co-founded the Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access (IDEA) 15 years ago "to confront what may be the most pressing public issue in Los Angeles and in California today: bringing neighbors together across the many communities of Los Angeles to address the critical problems of public education.”

I swear, I didn’t write these descriptions with LAUSD in mind; I didn’t write them at all. Do the very scholars whose research could make a real difference in school districts like ours not want to have anything to do with our schools?

Perhaps they know too much. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a disconnect between ideals and practice in LAUSD. Even supporters of former Superintendent John Deasy agree with critics that his implementation of lofty goals was problematic (though his critics never believed those were his goals in the first place). Sure, he could gather a parade of civil rights organizations to cheer his banning suspensions, but teachers and parents complained about a lack of resources for authentic positive discipline programs that would improve the learning environment for everyone.

But Deasy wasn’t alone in that disconnect. Board President Steve Zimmer has been waxing poetic lately about some of these lofty issues in interviews and he, too, seems light on the details. Is he going to be wowed by a superintendent who gives lip service to civil rights and equity goals that should simply be the starting point of the vetting process? What are the policies they have experience implementing?

Which brings us back to these scholars and others like them. They know a thing or two about connecting lofty ideals with policy and practice. Some of them may have even sparred with Eli Broad a time or two.

Yet the news of UCLA’s private high school underscores just how closed off LAUSD is. Why are the policymakers of the country’s second largest school district not talking with some of the best minds in public education policy? Doesn’t LAUSD think there is something to gain from some of UCLA’s six Nobel laureates, a Pritzker Prize winner, 12 MacArthur geniuses, an art department that features some of the most important artists working today, an engineering department that helped invent the internet (Yes, THAT internet.) and on and on and on?

With a meaningful relationship with the scholars and academic programs at UCLA--and any number of the universities in Los Angeles--LAUSD would be a better district that would then withstand the “choices” of parents and, therefore, be more resilient to an attack like Broad’s.  The best superintendent candidates in the country would be clamoring for the job as head of LAUSD.

Why is no one asking, “Would some more scholarship make LAUSD a better school district?”

I’m not a scholar and I’m not a school board member. But I’d be glad to escort some of both off the field for a chat. The theme: The best defense is a good offense.

Supe Search Survey Deadline Today!

LA School board president Steve Zimmer used Halloween as a way to draw attention to the public survey seeking input for the superintendent search by dressing up as Waldo--Where ARE those surveys?!

The response rate has been abysmal. Last week, less than 4000 responses had been received--in a district with 600,000 kids.

The whole nation is watching whether the LA School Board will stand up to Eli Broad’s hostile takeover and hire a superintendent who will fight for public schools. For good reason; what happens in LA has far reaching consequences. So it is only right that the board hear from the national activist community that has been fighting for public education for years. Please help us urge our school board to do the right thing by taking the two-minute anonymous survey now.

The local turnout of the community outreach forums has also been scant. A defeatist mood of “What difference does it make?” has prevailed. That’s understandable. After years of leadership that ignored the concerns of parents, teachers, and principals, many of us got at least a little beaten down. But now things could change for the long haul.

Remember FDR’s advice to those pushing him to do the right thing? "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

It’s our job to remind the board members of their duty. Los Angeles Unified School District is the largest district in the country with a democratically elected board. While other big cities have lost local control of their school boards to bully mayors and governors, Los Angeles survived its former “education Mayor” Villaraigosa’s” attempt at mayoral control when the courts shot that down.

Now, a billionaire bully has threatened a hostile takeover of half our schools. That makes it more important--and more urgent--than ever to participate.

The school board has already rightly rejected the push to allow special interest groups to have a special place in the process.

Now the public interest groups need to weigh in. That means you and me. We need to remind the board that they serve the public. We need to provide good advice so they will make a better decision. 

So we start by taking the survey today--and getting five friends to take it, too--and tell the school board to do the right thing.

Make them do it.

Is Eli Broad's hostile takeover of LAUSD coming from the outside or in?

LAUSD was making a clean break from a past that included the iPad scandal (still under federal  investigation) and the “don’t let the door hit you on the way out” resignation of John Deasy. Board President Steve Zimmer launched LAUSD’s community engagement campaign for the superintendent search last week.

“The public will be involved in helping to shape the conversation...Your voice as a stakeholder is very important to the Board of Education,” Zimmer wrote. This is a welcome change, considering Deasy was Eli Broad’s handpicked superintendent for the public schools, and is now his private superintendent at the unaccredited Broad Academy.

Input will be gathered at community outreach sessions. The LAUSD community is accustomed to such meetings, facilitated by a team of experts who have built trusting relationships with parents, faculty and neighbors, in sometimes difficult circumstances. We know them by name: Lorena, Fortunato, Holly, Judy and others.

However, rather than a Human or Community Relations facilitator, the person at the center of the outreach for the supe search is a lobbyist who has spent her career advancing an agenda closely aligned with Eli Broad’s.

Before joining LAUSD’s lobbying department, Beth Doctor Gibbons sharpened her chops for nearly three years at Michelle Rhee’s lobbying group, StudentsFirst, one of the leading organizations that champions Broad-style reforms.

Biography of a Zealot
Gibbons’ entire resume reads like the biography of a Broad zealot. To familiarize yourself with the organizations in Broad’s favor (or who you should not let bring free cookies into the teachers lounge), read on.

Let's start at the beginning.

Gibbons is an alumni of Teach For America (TFA), or Temps for America, as critics call it. TFA places elite college graduates in two-year teaching internships after five weeks of training. The departure of most of them after two years, when they move onto careers in other fields--sometimes to positions shaping public policy--destabilizes schools and undermines the teaching profession. Education policy scholar Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig of Cal State Sacramento has researched TFA extensively. He recently called for a policy debate about TFA when public outcries led two Southern California school districts to reject contracts with the organization. TFA is a foundational element of Broad’s plan.

After her two years was up, Gibbons spent a few months teaching at Harlem Success Academy, one of the schools in Eva Moskowitz’s New York charter chain. The chain is so closely aligned with Eli Broad's goals that he donated $5 million to help it expand from 20 to 100 schools. Sound familiar? Diane Ravitch's blog has the most complete log of the numerous published reports of the shenanigans of Success Academy charters over the years (draconian discipline policies, astonishingly high suspension rates, which Moscowitz defended as a way to promote “order and civility in the classroom,” closing the school for one day a year to have families lobby in support of charters).

After a semester at Harlem Success Academy, Gibbons worked for Educators for Excellence (E4E), a Gates-funded organization whose mission aligns perfectly with Broad’s plan. According to the education blog, Edushyster, E4E members sign a pledge to support school choice, the statistically invalid value-added measurements in teacher evaluations, and merit pay among other core values. These are major tenets of the Broad Academy.

Gibbons’ close ties to Broad’s agenda aren’t just guilt-by-association either. She claims credit for StudentsFirst’s lobbying campaign for California Senate Bill 441. Introduced by then Senator Ron Calderon, before he was indicted in a separate pay-for-play scheme, the bill was based on rightwing ALEC model legislation. It would have increased the frequency of teacher evaluations and eliminated teacher input into the process. Here is a short promo video starring Gibbons pushing for Calderon’s bill in the Capitol and urging the public to contact their legislators to vote ‘yes’. Disgraced Mayor Kevin Johnson (Rhee's husband) is represented, too.

It was defeated, but Gibbons’ actions in the video are enough to scare anyone who is rooting for LAUSD against Broad’s hostile takeover. Now she represents LAUSD in those same halls of the State Capitol?

Now at LAUSD
Since January, 2015, Gibbons has been an external affairs and legislative liaison in LAUSD’s Office of Government Relations, according to her  LinkedIn profile. That’s before the new board convened; certainly before new board member Scott Schmerelson vowed not to let Eli Broad bully the school board, before Steve Zimmer was board president, and before he said that Broad’s plan was a “gross perversion” of charters in an NBC television interview.

So has Gibbons turned over a new leaf since joining the largest school district in the country with a democratically elected school board? Not likely. She sent out an “invitation only” announcement for a “Community Briefing and Superintendent Search Meeting” to a select few. Who received this? Why is the rest of the community left out?

She also appears to be continuing to promote the corporate privatization agenda that Broad pursues even while the school board publicly reassures us that they are fighting against it.

Her twitter feed includes a lament to the nation's chief antagonist of public school parents and teachers:
“@arneduncan - You’ve been a true champion for kids and a bold systems innovator. You’re going to be sorely missed.”

And shouts out to her charter friends:
“...these KIPPsters and educators totally deserve it. Congrats! @KIPPLASchools”.

Can parents and community members trust that Gibbons will somehow fairly facilitate the outreach process for superintendent when she has built a resume lobbying a very specific agenda for schools?

Facilitating the Parent Advisory Committee for LAUSD, Gibbons has shown some responsiveness to parents, according to minutes. She “acknowledged the frustrations in the room and stated a willingness from her department to help make this process more meaningful.” However, when the LA School Board voted to approve the Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) based on the Parent Committee's input, six months after Gibbons arrived, a parent from new board member George McKenna’s district cried foul. She testified with complaints that parents had not been meaningfully involved.

There is also evidence that Gibbons might have collaborated with outside groups driving a specific agenda. One of the LCAP sessions was even hosted by the United Way, a civic  group now pushing Broad’s charter plan and demanding a central role in  the superintendent selection process.

They assert that only a committee outside of LAUSD will have legitimacy. If they convene such a committee to drive their reform agenda, Gibbons might make a good facilitator--for them.

A New Beginning
Since the new Board convened in July, 2015, most of its members have taken seriously their responsibility to repair the damage to the district--including the public perception--by the scandalous past. They have supported the Interim Superintendent Ramon Cortines, who has put a district back together that appears to have been dismantled from the inside. Now, the threats of “disruptive innovation” are coming from the outside.

At least we thought they were.

The School District will not win public confidence in the next superintendent by turning over the important community engagement process to a cheerleader for the very agenda they claim to be fighting against. Why is a lobbyist responsible for parent outreach in the first place?

The District needs to take immediate, definitive action to ensure an honest and transparent process that restores the trust of community members. That means Gibbons should not even be allowed in the room.

Then, if they’re serious about defending the district against Eli Broad’s attack, they can ask themselves what in the world anyone with Gibbons’ resume is doing representing LAUSD in any room at all.
 

Is the Los Angeles school board speaking truth to power, or was that Pope Francis?

When I say AALA, think Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, not Allah. This was no mosque, after all.

The AALA Fall Reception took place last Wednesday at the Plaza Center at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. Maybe, with Pope Francis making the most sense of anyone in the halls of Congress last week, AALA was hoping some of that holy mojo would rub off on all the board members, senior district staff and administrators present. There was no mention of any sacredness of the spot by AALA president, Juan Flecha, separation of church and state and all. Still, it was not business as usual.

The AALA event was rousing. The speakers--especially the board members--seemed inspired. 

California State Superintendent, Tom Torlakson offered a benediction of sorts and then the more personal messages followed. Board President Steve Zimmer, with his usual preachy oratorical flare, paid tribute to the superintendent.

"What Ray Cortines has done is one of the most incredible acts of public service I have ever seen," Zimmer said. He went on to thank the administrators, particularly in light of the horrific news of the high number of shootings in Los Angeles neighborhoods over the weekend, for being the rock that students and families lean on in such times. He reminded everyone there that school is the center of many communities.

Zimmer closed by reassuring the administrators in the wake of the privateers' declaration of war against LAUSD, saying, "We are going to walk through this fire together."

George McKenna offered the parables and personal anecdotes to which we've become accustomed. "We can't just fight to fight; we have to fight to win. When the elephants fight, only the grass gets trampled," he said.

McKenna's best line, which seemed to either search for encouragement or to serve as a warning, was, "We're either going to be the seven board members or we are going to be the seven dwarves. And I am not going to be Dopey!"

Monica Ratliff shared her uplifting comparison of those in attendance to the administrators she's now working with in a nearby school district. She said she had hoped to take a part time job outside LAUSD to bring in some great ideas but reported that she has witnessed no miracles.

"You experience challenges that many [administrators] in many districts do not." Ratliff also lamented, "We don't see a lot of news about how fantastic our principals are."

If it's true that God helps those who help themselves, perhaps the miracle was prophesied by the newest board member, Scott Schmerelson. He thanked AALA members for being the first to endorse him in his election.

A retired principal, Schmerelson's folksy remarks sounded typical at first: "I think it's very important that we model good behavior."

But then, like in a Catholic funeral mass, when a crescendo lifts the deceased into the heavens, Schmerelson led the charge: "There is to be no bullying anywhere in LAUSD. And that is not just for kids. We need to expose those bullies and embarrass them. And there is a big bully running around and his name is Eli Broad. And he will not bully us."

The audience seemed overjoyed. Or maybe that was the angels singing. 

Magnet Schools Far Outperform Charters!

Parents Rating Schools by Test Scores Should Choose LAUSD Magnets
Magnet Schools Dramatically Outperform Charters on SBAC Results

LAUSD Superintendent Ramon Cortines released a blockbuster report today announcing the stellar performance of LAUSD magnet schools on the new Common Core aligned Smarter Balanced Assessments.

“While overall results indicate that independent charter schools scored higher on these tests than traditional LAUSD schools, it also highlights the stellar performance of our magnet schools, which out-performed charter schools at all grade levels,” Cortines wrote.

In English Language Arts, 65% of magnets scored higher than the state average compared with 34% of independent charters. On the Math assessment, 56% of magnets scored higher than the state average, more than twice what the charters scored.

This report proves what many public education advocates have always known: the diversity of our public schools is an asset, not something to avoid.

Charter school parents often choose charters because class sizes are smaller and the school community is similar to their own. But this report turns that choice on its head.

“The performance of our magnets demonstrates how academic innovation can serve minority students and those from underserved communities who are seeking a nontraditional education. While the primary function of our magnets is to ensure ethnic diversity at schools districtwide, the 198 magnet programs and schools also provide a community of learning for students at all economic levels.” Cortines said.

Will this report inform LAUSD policymaking? Let’s hope so. Magnets should be expanded so more students can enroll. Magnets should be provided with greater resources to support the teachers and provide smaller class sizes. More magnets should be opened to give more students the excellent education LAUSD can provide.

Even the test-obsessed will have trouble arguing with that.

View the report here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/282531634/SBA-Informative-LAUSD-Charters-Magnets
View the test score data here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/282531795/Attach-a-SBAC-LAUSD-Charters-Magnets