Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Clint's WSJ column and LAUSD

Quite a few edublogs responded to Clint’s recent WSJ article.  One of those responses connects nicely into events currently unfolding in California. 

While Eduwonk has a see-I-told-you-so moment–maybe he and Matt Ladner will go another round?–Alexander Russo points this out:

The thing that jumps out at me from Clint Bolick’s gleeful WSJ piece about recent progress on vouchers (‘Toe-Hold Strategies’) isn’t so much that some state and federal Dems are crossing over and supporting vouchers (in DC, for Katrina) or that voucher advocates have adopted a "toe-hold" strategy to get around powerful teachers unions.

Rather it’s that Democrats and school officials have done such a bad job pushing for public school choice in NCLB and elsewhere that they’ve created room for voucher advocates to jump in. Or, as Bolick puts it, they’re "running out of viable alternatives." No big surprise, then, that Dems are going to have to consider voucher options when NCLB gets reauthorized. (emphasis added)

What first caught my attention about this is how cleanly it circles back to something Eduwonk keeps banging on about:

…the idea that we restrict the choices that parents have in the alleged service of the greater good just doesn’t fly in a society like ours. One inescapable theme of the last 40 years of school reform is that if unsatisfied parents can walk, one way or another, they will. What’s different now is that low-income families can increasingly walk through ideas like vouchers. That ought to discomfort public school supporters more than it apparently does.

In other words, stonewalling choice options is politically unwise, to say the least.  Which is at least one reason why LAUSD and Compton Unified School District would do well to change course. 

When we filed our administrative action against those two districts in March, hundreds of thousands of children in both districts were (and remain) eligible to transfer to better schools.  In L.A., a whopping 527 students–0.2%–had transferred.  In Compton, none–none–have done so.  To understate the matter, that would tend to indicate that parents have not been properly informed of their options under NCLB, which that law requires schools to do. 

Predictably, the districts sloughed us off, in the process disregarding statements by Margaret Spellings both directly and indirectly on the situation.  From here, we’ll continue to pursue all legal options, so this isn’t over by a long shot.  But what is vital to consider is that the playing field in Los Angeles has been radically altered by way of Villaraigosa’s takeover plan.  With the deal recently cobbled together (our rundown is here, but of course School Me! follows every move of this thing), the opposition is starting to take shape.  The LA Times is reporting that the plan could bring the union an intramural fistfight:

Villaraigosa’s elaborate plan to take control of the Los Angeles Unified School District grabbed the attention of rank-and-file teachers Thursday, the day after it was announced. While some applauded it, many disagreed with him — and their own union leadership.

In close consultation with teachers unions, the mayor agreed this week as part of a sweeping reform plan to let schools choose their own instructional methods and effectively do away with top-down centralized programs.

Villaraigosa said this week that his plan, which the Legislature is expected to consider soon, would spawn "the kind of environment that really can be an incubator for great ideas and success."

United Teachers Los Angeles has long chafed under what it considers overly rigid mandates from the district’s top officials, and the union has wanted more leeway for teachers to decide what works best at their schools.

But teachers and principals at several L.A. Unified campuses said the mayor’s proposal could ravage districtwide reading and math programs that they say have brought continuity to thousands of classrooms and helped drive up standardized test scores over the last six years.

Furthermore, it sounds like parents may be gearing up to oppose the move.  From the LA Daily News:

Even though the mayor fell short of his goal of full control of the LAUSD, a group of parents said they would fight to block the scaled-down version being proposed.

"What concerns us is that none of the parents were ever talked to," said Scott Folsom, president of the 10th District Parent, Teacher, Student Association. "… All we are asking for is a serious discussion between the mayor, the school district and parents to discuss what is in the best interests of the children of the district." 

Folsom’s edubio reveals an individual awfully integrated into the LAUSD machinery.  His blog reflects an awful lot of opposition to the takeover.  Upshot: this is the last parent Villaraigosa wants opposing him.  If Folsom is able to gather enough likeminded parents and teachers, the takeover plan could hit a rather nasty roadblock. 

In this context, LAUSD’s response to our administrative action is all the more laughable.  From what parents are saying, they haven’t been told about much of anything, either by the district in terms of their NCLB rights or by City Hall concerning the takeover plan.  And some would argue this MO of entirely shutting parents out of the process fits LAUSD–the bloated, labyrinthine bureaucratic nightmare that is the nation’s second-largest school district–like a glove. 

So here’s some unsolicited advice for Villaraigosa.  You’ve managed to build some political momentum for your takeover.  Good for you.  But if you don’t act fast, you could face the likes of Folsom leading a mob of angry parents.  So bring him and other parents to the table.  And do it very publicly, with lots of fanfare, press conferences and photo-ops.  It’s about time parents were consulted–about what they as parents want for their children, what Villaraigosa wants to make happen, and what their legal options are.  If you don’t, those parents–who are increasingly empowered via school choice–will have little reason to believe LAUSD under you will be any different than LAUSD under the school board. 

UPDATE: In a lengthy must-read column, S

chool Me!’s Bob Sipchen shares the following anecdote to underscore why he’s pessimistic on the Villaraigosa deal. 

Also known as "Scarecrow," Deshawn is a Fremont High senior I wrote about a few weeks back after he finally, and with great joy, passed the state’s high school exit exam. Following an interview, we had decided to grab a bite. As we left the crowded apartment he shares with his sister and her children, he mentioned that he might want to be a chef someday. Sizzler was his idea of a fancy joint. I decided The Times could treat him to a better steak.

(United Teachers Los Angeles president A.J. Duffy and Villaraigosa chief of staff Robin Kramer) were seated in the front room as we walked in, engaging in one of the hundreds of meetings, planned or serendipitous, required to make any big political deal coalesce. I understand.

I stopped to say hi, and introduced the big kid in baggy clothes beside me. The maitre d’ then led us to the far reaches of the restaurant, where he seated us next to a shaved-head dude who was so drunk or drugged that he toppled onto us as he tried to stand. The service stank.

Deshawn understood what was happening, and savored his steak anyway. My enjoyment was undermined by the symbolism. Being treated as if you don’t count, after all, is what too many L.A. Unified students have come to expect.