Translate

Wednesday, November 2, 2022

LAUSD Up -- Periodic Reporting on the Los Angeles Unified School District - Episode Two

HEY! Don't neglect to  

Vote with check for v

It really, really matters. Vote, as they say, like the country and your life depend on it. They do.

Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8, but you don't have to wait until the last minute...

These are the candidates UTLA is supporting:
  • Dr. Rocio Rivas - LAUSD Board District 2
  • Kelly Gonez - LAUSD Board District 6
  • Erin Darling -LA City Council District 11
  • Hugo Soto-Martinez - LA City Council District 13
  • Danielle Sandoval - LA City Council District 15
  • Lindsey Horvath - LA County Board of Supervisors District 3
  • Karen Bass - LA Mayor
  • Yes on Measure ULA

 

Now the news, in four parts...

ITEM 1. You say there was a data breach at LAUSD? You'd like to know what progress they've made in identifying victims and determining the extent of the damage? Me, too. If you have received notification from the district, please let me know and tell me what that looked like. If you called the "hotline" and actually found out something you didn't know, please describe that experience for us. The last report I had was a wait on hold followed by "We'll contact you if we have information for you."

If you can't believe the district is slow and unresponsive, you must be new. Best case scenario within the parameters: They hired an inept contractor to investigate the breach. Worst case: They screwed up, the damage is extensive, and they don't want anyone to know the truth. Most likely: Both things are true.

In the meantime, I guess we're all just standing by for an update. 


ITEM 2. Speaking of standing by, how are contract negotiations going? I've heard the district is handling the contract about as well as the breach--which is to say, slowly and unresponsively. UTLA would do well to keep membership (and the public at large) in the loop, if only to demonstrate that they are reasonable and energized in contrast with the sluggish district. I know the "Beyond Recovery" Platform contract demands, and there's this twitter thread on the bargaining:

And this reminder:

 

This is the page detailing the proposals and capturing the back-and-forth. If you teach in LAUSD, you should definitely read. If not but you feel like you haven't had enough anger in your life lately, also read.

I haven't read through every page of every proposal and counter, but so far it's the counter proposals from the district I find most interesting and revealing. Endless PD, of course. Apparently the beatings will continue until morale improves. In addition, the district has carved out space to outsource work to consultants that ought to be done by teacher experts. Because that's where the money is. And the kickbacks. 

And from what I saw, each time the union proposed an increased measure of collaboration and stakeholder input, the district screeched in fear of losing its "authority" (read: power to push people around) and rushed to defend its antediluvian hierarchical power structure. This was true whether that proposed input was from teachers or parents or students. Seems that if they can't be assured of getting the answers they want, they are not interested in what anybody else has to say.

LAUSD appears determined to reject any proposals that might force them and their administrators to give up power or do extra work--in other words, to block anything that might pull the district out of the ditch and set it on a better path. 

UTLA has put forward a pretty full slate of demands, but contrary to the propaganda, everything--even, I would argue, the raises in teacher pay--redounds to the students. Our work environment is their learning environment, and the better it is, the better it is for everyone. We need an agreement. For the children! 

 

ITEM 3. The upcoming school board elections (vote!). UTLA has endorsed Dr. Rocio Rivas for the open seat and Kelly Gonez for reelection. As per usual, the contest comes down to pro-public school vs. charter school advocacy organizations. Much more on the charter school movement in an upcoming "enemies of public schooling" post. Stay tuned for "ICYMI, charter schools are a terrible idea."

Now let's talk L.A. Times. When I started writing this a couple days ago, I was actually going to write: "In a refreshing change, the Los Angeles Times has taken their thumb off the scale and for once allowed Howard Blume to honestly report the battle." That would have been in response to Blume's article titled "L.A. school board candidates face dizzying array of challenges" in the print version, with the subhead "Labor unions, charters have much at stake in the election." 

Side Note: Oddly, the title online is "Profound challenges face LAUSD candidates, but big donors still fight over charter schools," making the dispute sound like a sensational clash between heavyweights, when the text of the article--which hasn't changed, as far as I can tell--makes it clear that the charter school death star has spent almost twice as much on Rivas's opponent (4.5 million) as UTLA has spent on Rivas (2.4 mill). 

I've been hard on Blume before (and will be again--see below) so I thought I should note that this article is not bad. Dr. Rivas is still referred to as "the chosen candidate of the United Teachers Los Angeles union," and the requisite definition of charter schools does refer to them as "privately operated public schools"--which are public only in the sense that you and I pay for them--that are "mostly nonunion." 

In general, however, the reporting of the facts and the positions of the candidates is straightforward and dispassionate, with significant space given to Rivas to lay out the pro-public school case against charters. If you didn't know that the L.A. Times is pro-school choice and fervently anti-union, you probably wouldn't figure it out from this article. Thanks, Blume.

Now what it the hell is this? Online today (haven't yet seen a print version) is "Your guide to the L.A. school board candidates on the 2022 California midterm ballot" also by Blume, but it's like somebody got to him. 

The article plows ground early as readers are reminded that charter schools "have a legal right to demand classroom and office space" (which is exactly what Dr. Rivas wants to address). Then it finds a way to pump up Superintendent and world-class suit-wearer Alberto Carvalho as "among the nation’s most experienced district administrators." 

Then the Times finds its happy place as it reverts to type with money talk. After acknowledging that "[i]n the short term, the school system has unprecedented financial resources to address concerns," the article warns ominously that "[i]n the long term, the funding could drop sharply, leading to difficult choices." Blume follows that grim forecast with an immediate reminder that teachers are asking for "a 20% raise over two years." Or rather, their union is. 

When we finally get to the election part of this election article, it gets worse. (I note here without comment that the Times has endorsed Rivas's opponent.)

Rivas and her opponent are purportedly compared across a variety of areas from test scores to the Super to charter schools. 

Rivas, whom the article says, "declined to be interviewed for this article," is portrayed as a bit of a lightweight using quotes cobbled together from previous statements. Her opponent is given a much more fulsome depiction with the scary charter school stuff smoothed over and shot through a gauzy "Opposes new charters in her area" filter. 

Seems like a letdown from the "fight over charter schools" between big donor labor and big donor charter with so much at stake in the election. In a premium example of saying a thing without saying it, the best the article can do is signal that  Rivas's ambition to, in the words of the Times, "end the sharing of district-operated campuses with charters" is moot because "state law would limit the district’s authority to take that step."

It's true: Charter advocates have a powerful head start. State law (made by state supporters of charters) makes it a challenge to reverse the damage already done by permitting charter schools to siphon off public school resources. Campus space has been hijacked, including classrooms dedicated to electives and outdoor spaces filled with "temporary" classroom bungalows. Reversing that damage and that policy ought to be the objective. 

Speaking of objective, Blume's October 30 article laid out the case. This one, not so much.

It was gratifying to read straight news reporting, if only briefly. Nice while it lasted.


And finally...

ITEM 4. How about some feel-good? After all the scaremongering and dire predictions of declining enrollment -- 30% PLUNGE! -- Superintendent Carvalho is out there kissing babies and handing out swag to promote LAUSD to parents of newborns. Today's L.A. Times reports on the "student recruitment campaign" and I... LOVE it. 

This first stop was at L.A. County-USC Medical Center and seems to be a collaboration between the district and the hospital's charitable foundation. It's easy to see the potential for partnerships between community hospitals and community schools, and although boosting enrollment would be nice, the real value is in connecting families to resources that follow the kids as they grow. 

Even though the Times does its usual kvetching--it won't be enough!--and even manages to drag pensions and health benefits into the doom and gloom(!), I find myself saying, "This could actually work." If the district is open to input from all stakeholders and not just the corporationists, if it maintains the flexibility to learn and adapt as the program develops, and if it has the will to see it through and finish what it starts, there is real potential here. If not, then it's just another marketing scheme. "Rebranding" 2.0.


That's the news from here. Please comment if you have information or just something to say. Good luck out there. See you next time.





at

1 comment:

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)