Stout, Stout, Get it Worked Out!
'Kick a Ginger Day' Spawned At Least 5 Attacks on Redheaded Kids
Cool, Crafy, Community Event: Unique LA's Holiday Show
Intrepid L.A. Foodies Tackle 11-in-11 Nocturnal Challenge
Map of the Day: Outdoor Skating Rinks in Los Angeles
If it's broke, fix it, right? Only what happens when the people who are supposed to fix it are the ones who broke it in the first place? And they happened to have run out of the money it's going to likely take to do the fixing? Easy solution: Sell management of the school(s) to the highest--well, "superior"--bidder.
The resolution is called "Public School Choice: A New Way at LAUSD" and will be voted on at the next Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education meeting on August 25th, having been postponed from July 14th. The proposal "opens ownership [of schools] to not only the district or charter operations but also the mayors office, private business and nonprofit groups," according to OurLA.org, and has already garnered objections from parents and teachers, and the stalwart support of some school board members--most prominently its backer, Yolie Flores Aguilar--and the Mayor's office. Perhaps because the Mayor's "alliance" for improving troubled schools earned him a failing grade from its participants at the end of this school year, today the LA Times has published an opinion piece authored by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa endorsing the plan.
As a counterstrike to the ineffective "staus quo," Villaraigosa is urging people to see that the proposed plan would allow non-bureaucrats to "get past the gatekeepers and stop preserving a system defined by low performance, low standards and low expectations." Essentially, the proposal opens up control of some schools to any interested party--including the LAUSD themselves--to apply for "ownership" by providing the Board with what boils down to a business plan for operating, and in theory, improving the school.
Who decides who gets control? Why the Board, of course. Yes--even though the Board may have a vested interested in securing control as one of the bidders.
VIllaraigosa's perspective bears the language of hope that, unfortunately, he's demonstrated rings hollow once implemented. He talks of "embrac[ing] new ideas," and the wish to "turn our public education system on its head," in order to give our grossly under-served children that chance at the quality education that evades them under the current reins. His campaign-style rhetoric is enough to indicate maybe a call to Shepard Fairey to commission a portrait of the Mayor looking dreamily but confidently into the distance under the giant letters spelling EDUCATION is not more than a moment away.
But really he's working to hush the already clamoring voices of objectors who see the option to "privatize" public education. Opines Villaraigosa:
I recognize that these changes won't come easily. I know that the voices of dissent -- the individuals and institutions that rely on and benefit from the status quo -- will try to drown out the calls for reform. But we cannot place the same old failing school system into brand new buildings and expect different results.So is this the solution?Rather than feel threatened by a new system, district leaders and unions should join the effort, present their own proposals, and take the lead in making these new schools the best in the city.
Flores Aguilar's measure is not designed to shut anyone out but to welcome new approaches and pursue models that are already known to work -- regardless of whether the plan comes from charter organizations, teachers or other reformers.
Passing the board measure represents progress on the broader agenda of shutting down failing schools and reopening them as reform campuses. We must not wait for another report card telling us we did not make the grade. We must work together and take action now.
Tell us what you think: Is this an idea you'd get behind?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
The Mayor is advocating these major changes. Has he been successful at the 10 schools which he took over?
http://www.examiner.com/x-3311-LA-Public-Education-Examiner~y2009m7d23-LAUSD-the-Governor-and-the-Mayor
While we do need reform at our schools, we really need to change the culture of our city from one that believes it's 'uncool' to be smart or participate in the educational process, to one that values education and aspires to attend colleges. That means safer schools (both on campus and off), adequate facilities and tools, and most importantly, more parental involvement in their child's education and after-school life.
It's one thing to rail against proposed changes. But really, what options do we have for a system that has failed for so long?
Big vague word of the day accountability. I don't think anyone in the city is remotely thinking of accountability. If schools were operated like corporations, yes there would be improvement, knowing how quick corporations are to axe under-performing workers, and turn a profit by operating efficiently (something LAUSD and the mayor has failed to do), however, it should not take privatization to have this achieved. Parents want quality in their schools, and unfortunately, the school district has not done a great job of modeling quality. Yes, there are a couple of schools in the district that sit in the nations top 100 in ranking, however, by not modeling successful standards, the rest of the schools are festering. Students come out of school still as illiterate as when they entered. I'm done with the Mayor shaking the hands and kissing the babies for the media. It's time for accountability without passing the buck.
While LAUSD should allow some choice in how schools will operate, we want this tempered with the understanding that certain institutions hold an unfair advantage over community based, teacher, and other organizations in terms of submitting proposals to run schools. Organizations like Green Dot, with millions of dollars in private funding at their disposal, employing a bevy of professionals writing grant proposals, and with the ability to "market" themselves in the selection process, hold such an unfair advantage. This would be detrimental to our communities and is tantamount to selling our kids' futures to the highest bidder and lowest common denominator.
Thank you Lindsay and Thank you LAist for daring to offer us Angelenos some critical analysis of what's happening in Public Education! Thanks for keeping it real! Be strong.
The thing is, as it stands the "bureaucracy arm" of the district rakes in the lions share of money and stands in the the way of those who could actually effect change.
Just like any other dysfunctional monstrosity they oft scapegoat diligent teachers with outdated cookie cutter rigidity that can never work in the diverse region that is Los Angeles. Yet their heels are dug in but good, as overpaid administrators do countrywide.
NCLB already gives the school board power to carry out the Public School Choice options. The Flores Aguilar motion moves beyond in allowing a sell off of bond generated new schools. How can we possibly entrust the school board to choose wisely when they refuse to take action or responsibility as is? This board is giving up on public education. They need to go.