As LAUSD and United Teachers Los Angeles enter contract mediation Thursday, the district plans to make a final offer to give teachers 6 percent raises and reduce class sizes by four students at 75 elementary schools and 15 middle schools serving high-need kids.

The final offer would also address one issue that a recent Speak UP working group of parents and teachers called for: changing the types of classes that teachers can take to move up the pay scale to better address student learning needs. As it stands now, teachers can get pay raises for taking classes that have nothing to do with what they are teaching. LAUSD’s offer would align those classes to district priorities such as STEAM, bilingual education and early literacy.  

But despite calls from parents to focus on improving the quality of teaching that kids receive, the final offer does not attempt to change any of the policies surrounding how often teachers are evaluated or policies that protect ineffective teachers, such as forcing schools to hire “must-place” teachers they don’t want.

“Unfortunately, this contract offer does not do enough to ensure that every student has a quality teacher in front of the classroom,” said Speak UP Executive Director Katie Braude. “It would lock us into the status quo for another two years, leaving intact the parts of the contract that value seniority over teacher performance. Teachers and parents agree that regular and meaningful evaluations improve teacher quality and effectiveness. Teachers we work with feel unsupported when they don’t get that regular feedback. Teachers should not go five years without being evaluated, and no school should be forced to hire a teacher against their will. No one benefits from that situation.” 

Parents showed up at the LAUSD Board meeting in force Tuesday, calling on the LAUSD Board to demand a teacher contract that addresses the issue of teacher quality, but also to avoid a strike. Board District 2 parent Vincenta Martinez said a strike “will be a crisis. Already in Los Angeles, too many children in our communities don’t get the education they deserve. This strike will only make things worse.”

While LAUSD has asked to add a fourth tier to evaluations recognizing highly effective teachers, parents pushed the Board to make bigger changes that would improve teaching quality. “Every child deserves great teachers, no matter the community they live in, but to make that happen, we have to have a contract that puts that goal as its core principle,” said Vickey Vaughn, a parent in Board District 1. “We want great teachers who get recognized for their work and who will go into the schools that need them the most. We want to make sure that ineffective teachers don’t stay in classrooms with kids. We want teachers to be evaluated in a real way, and if they need support, to get support.”

Speak UP Director Of Operations Daphne Radfar presented to the Board preliminary findings from its parent-teacher working group that collaborated on a vision for a contract that values teachers and puts kids first.  

“Teachers and parents agreed that seniority alone should not be the single most important factor that determines compensation scales, displacements and layoffs, school and classroom assignments, or leadership roles,” Radfar said. “The parents and teachers in our group believe that LAUSD teachers should be evaluated and given constructive and meaningful feedback at least once a year…We agree that teacher compensation should be tied to performance, and that excellent teachers should be rewarded for their excellence.”

Judging from the LAUSD final offer, however, the district appears to be shying away from pushing the envelope on big issues related to teacher quality. The class size reduction would lead to the hiring of additional teachers in some of the highest-need schools.

The district offer is for 6 percent raises (3 percent retroactive to last school year and 3 percent this year). The contract would be in effect until 2020. The LAUSD offer would also align the eligibility requirements for free lifetime health benefits with the other employee unions, making employees eligible when their age and years of service add up to 87 rather than the current 85.

One additional provision that LAUSD is putting on the table in its final offer: for LAUSD and UTLA to work together to provide a summary of what’s in the contract in plain enough language for parents and community members to understand.  It’s an attempt to provide the public with an agreed-upon set of facts, which have been hard to come by during the negotiations, and to allow parents to have greater access to the negotiation process.

Hours after LAUSD released details of its offer, UTLA rejected it outright, calling it “insulting,” which means a painful strike could be weeks away.

Board Member Richard Vladovic (BD7) said LAUSD should apologize to parents for ruining their kids’ lives because teachers at the lowest-performing schools are so rarely evaluated, and it takes at least three years to dismiss a teacher who consistently receives poor performance reviews.

“Where’s the apology letter to parents? It takes three years, and we’ve destroyed the lives of 150 kids,” Vladovic said at the Board meeting Tuesday. “I just want to see the apology letter to the parents that says ‘we’re sorry, you’re child’s life has been messed up.’ Because one year of a bad teacher can hurt…Where’s the apology letter for our evaluation system that allows our children to be suffering, and they do. Three years to fire somebody!”

Under terms of the United Teachers Los Angeles contract, a teacher can go five full years without any performance evaluation. About 400 LAUSD teachers have not been evaluated in the last five years, Deputy Superintendent Vivian Ekchian told the Board Tuesday.

“We recognize that there’s no other place that we’re aware of, in private industry in particular, where someone’s evaluation process is every five years,” Ekchian said.

Vladovic was also incensed that there’s no requirement that it be put in writing when and why a principal and teacher agree that a teacher does not need to be evaluated. If a new principal arrives and tries to evaluate a teacher, the teacher can cry foul and claim there was some prior “handshake” deal excusing the teacher from evaluation for five years, Vladovic said. “We don’t have any evidence,” he said. “We don’t really know who’s been excused.”

Ekchian clarified that principals are supposed to make that decision annually so a new principal absolutely has the right to evaluate every teacher on staff once in any given year. However, that’s not happening, in part because the process is so arduous and time consuming, she said.

Vladovic, who worked as a principal and evaluated every teacher on his own staff when he was new to a school, said that LAUSD should identify which principals are evaluating their teachers infrequently.

“If the principal is saying five years to every individual on their staff, and their school is one of the lowest performing schools in the district, somebody’s wrong,” Vladovic said. “I want it in writing who’s being evaluated annually, who’s being evaluated every other year because a principal waived them, and then I want to start looking at the school. If a principal waived 20 percent of their staff and they’re the lowest performing school in the district, what’s going on? Nobody is checking that.” 

Last year, only one third of LAUSD teachers were formally evaluated. “I want to know where the other 20,000 of employees are and why they aren’t being evaluated,” Vladovic said.  

Board members also questioned the accuracy of the evaluations. According to a recent analysis by the advocacy organization Parent Revolution, nearly all the teachers who were evaluated at low-performing schools — 96% — were deemed to meet or exceed performance standards, even though just 27% of their students met or exceeded the state’s standards in English and only 20% in math.

That’s partly because the union contract limits how a teacher can be evaluated. Out of 61 elements that make up LAUSD’s teacher evaluation framework, the union contract specifies that LAUSD can select only three criteria. Parent feedback and student growth are not among the factors considered. Parents also have no access to teacher evaluations and no way of learning how often teachers at their school are evaluated.

When teachers do receive a poor performance evaluation, “our job is to help the teacher,” said Board Member George McKenna (BD1). They receive about 80 hours of support and coaching to help them get better. “We must improve them before we remove them. That should be our mantra.”

But when a tenured teacher does not improve, the dismissal process is so lengthy and difficult that principals often don’t bother to go through all the steps required for a teacher to be removed. Teachers typically file union grievances against their principal, which takes more time and creates even more paperwork. 

Vladovic questioned whether the current evaluation system was actually making things better.

“Does it result in better teaching?” Vladovic asked. “No, it hasn’t made a difference. The perennial schools are still failing. It hasn’t produced the results we want. It has not produced improved student achievement. It hasn’t made us more accountable. And it’s killed off our principals who are now gun shy from doing it.”

The bottom line, Vladovic said: “I believe we’re failing our community and our children.” 

Quality teaching, more equitable funding, a focus on the most disadvantaged students and making it easier for parents to volunteer. These were among the top policy priorities that LAUSD Superintendent Austin Beutner outlined during a speech in the library of Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools Thursday.

“Low-income students, students of color, English Learners, LGBTQ youth, children who lack healthcare, students exposed to violence in their neighborhoods or homes, and students with special needs are being left behind at an alarming rate,” Beutner said. “These students are not provided with the same opportunities as their peers in different neighborhoods and communities where families earn more money.”

Beutner called for a change to the way states fund schools based on student attendance rather than enrollment, saying it hurts the kids who need the most help. “In Watts, the kindergarten population is chronically absent almost one quarter of the time, which means that those schools are getting less funding than a school might in Beverly Hills where chronic absenteeism is less than ten percent. We need to fix a funding system that is not equitable and penalizes the very students most in need.”

Two weeks after United Teachers Los Angeles members authorized a strike, Beutner also encouraged teachers, parents and the district to come together to push for more state funding. “We want smaller class sizes, better pay for teachers, and additional counselors, librarians and support staff in every school – but we will need more money to pay for it. We can only spend what we have,” he said. “Instead of fighting each other, we should be fighting together to increase funding for our students. $16,000 per pupil is simply not enough.”

Without that collaboration, his prognosis for the district was bleak. “We’re facing a fiscal cliff. It’s not theoretical and it’s not debatable. If nothing changes, we are headed for insolvency in the next two to three years,” he said. “If that happens, a fiscal advisor will be appointed by the state and we’ll no longer have local control over our schools. Budgets will be slashed, class sizes will rise, and decisions won’t be made in the best interest of our students and families. Los Angeles Unified is not too big to fail, and no one is coming to save us if we do.”

Despite that ominous tone when discussing the finances, Beutner’s overall message was what he called a “true progressive vision” for education.  He reached out directly to parents, touching on much of the Speak UP platform, including quality teaching, equity, transparency, accountability, collaboration and responsiveness to parent concerns.

He tackled the number one priority of Speak UP members surveyed: making sure we have effective teachers in every classroom, saying we need more support, professional development and pay for hard-working teachers. LAUSD wants to create a new evaluation category recognizing highly effective teachers so they can become models to help their fellow teachers improve.

“Our best teachers are literally changing lives. We need to make sure they feel appreciated, are rewarded, and are committed to a long career at Los Angeles Unified,” he said. “They need more support. We need to pay our teachers more and provide necessary support so that every teacher has the chance to develop and truly excel in their classrooms.”

Beutner expressed his support for teacher tenure but said he wants to find a way to make sure students are not stuck with teachers who are “not up to the task.”

“The reality is that a few people in the teaching profession are not helping students succeed,” he said. “An ineffective teacher can cause students to lose more than a year of learning, which is setting students up for failure. While more than 80 percent of effective teachers maintain standards for good attendance, more than 40 percent of ineffective teachers do not. We need a transparent, efficient, and fair process to manage ineffective teachers out. In the same way that we need to support teachers, we need to support students and make sure that they have great teachers in their classrooms.”

Speak Up parent Rosa Elena Andresen, who attended the speech, appreciated Beutner’s focus on teacher quality. “As a parent, this is exactly what I want to see,” she said. “I think we should reward those great teachers. We have great teachers in our district. But then again, we need some consequences for teachers who are no longer performing because they are affecting our children’s education. It’s not fair to students to have a teacher not performing where they need to be.”  

With the state superintendent’s office adding its voice Tuesday to the chorus of warnings about LAUSD’s finances, longtime allies of the teachers union are now among those saying that the union’s demands – under threat of a strike – could send LAUSD over the fiscal cliff.

“We can’t bargain ourselves into insolvency,” Board Member George McKenna (BD1), whose candidacy was backed by UTLA, said at the Board meeting Tuesday. “They can strike, and at some point we’ll settle the strike, but at what cost to the parents, to the children? I’m absolutely opposed to a strike. I’ve been through a strike. I know how hard it is for staff, parents, the children. It’s terrible.”

A strike could even deal a fatal blow to the district, which is already losing 16,000 students a year, said Board Member Richard Vladovic (BD7). “When they go on strike, another 4000 parents are going to leave this district and go someplace else, and we’re going to lose the money for that,” he said. “And when they do that, it’s a self-fulfilling cycle of despair. Bad things are going to happen if there’s a strike, and I’ll tell you, you will never, ever recover.”

The dire warnings from Vladovic and McKenna came in response to remarks from Candi Clark, Chief Financial Officer of the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), and Nick Schweizer, Deputy Superintendent of the California Department of Education.

Clark said that LACOE is giving only “conditional” approval to the LAUSD budget, and she directed the LAUSD Board to pass a resolution specifying $72 million in budget cuts by Oct. 8. Without those cuts, LAUSD will be insolvent within three years, she said. If that happens, state takeover will follow.

“I am concerned that the window of opportunity is closing to address the district’s fiscal challenges,” Clark said. “It’s imperative that the governing board step up its efforts to stabilize the district’s fiscal operation. The district cannot continue to go down the path of simply just drawing down the reserves.”

Schweizer spoke on behalf of State Superintendent Tom Torlakson -- a strong ally of the statewide teachers union -- and backed up Clark’s dire assessment. “We certainly share [LACOE’s] concerns about the deficit spending,” he said. “We support their conditional approval of the budget and their recommendation that the district begin addressing the deficit in a time sensitive manner.”

Board President Monica Garcia (BD2) asked Schweizer point blank whether his presence at the meeting was a “warning flag that you’re watching, and these issues are serious?”

Schweizer’s response: “Yes. My presence is indicative this is serious,” he said. “We are hoping that the district works with all of its partners to address solutions to this problem. This district needs to be strong and robust.” While “LAUSD is not alone” in facing financial pressures, it’s in “worse condition than many others,” he said.

Clark warned LAUSD not to use its reserve funds to cover ongoing salary increases, calling it “a key indicator for risk of potential insolvency.” Instead, she said that LAUSD must address its structural deficit. “It’s very clear that you’re living off the reserves. That’s not wise.”

LAUSD is currently spending more each year than it receives in revenues, and even after identifying an additional $72 million in cuts, LAUSD’s reserve fund will be a paltry $1.5 million within three years. If LAUSD does not bring its deficit spending under control, Clark said for a second time that LACOE may take financial control away from the LAUSD Board.

“We do believe in local control,” Clark said. “However, when the state’s early warning system necessitates our intervention in a school district, we are prepared to respond. Should the district continue to incur expenditures and erode the fund balance, our office is left with no other choice but to respond.”

LACOE recently rescinded Board authority at another school district, and McKenna, for one, took Clark’s warning to heart. “I was a superintendent in Inglewood, and they sent us a fiscal advisor because the Board continued to spend because of demands from unions saying ‘we want our money, we want it retroactive,’” he said.

Ultimately, it led to salary cuts and loss of local control. “A fiscal advisor will come and sit at the horseshoe and make all decisions that have to do with budget,” McKenna said. “The board will have nothing to say about it. We won’t be able to vote, nor will the superintendent.”

McKenna has also lived through the next step: state takeover. “It’s the worst thing in world,” McKenna said. “I was in Compton when it was in receivership. Our salaries don’t exist anymore. We don’t get paid. We’re now volunteers. The superintendent position disappears.”

Such comments from the union’s traditional allies marked a strong rebuke to union representatives that continue to deny the reality of LAUSD’s financial woes. The three-year budget process is designed as an early warning system so LAUSD can make budget cuts in time to prevent bankruptcy. Because LAUSD has been responsible enough to avoid falling off the fiscal cliff in the past, UTLA leaders accuse the district of crying wolf.

Despite a pledge by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti to do all he can to prevent a teachers strike, peace between L.A. Unified and United Teachers Los Angeles remains elusive.

On the same day LAUSD Superintendent Austin Beutner accepted Garcetti’s offer to intervene and facilitate a settlement, UTLA rejected the help and filed an unfair labor practice charge against the district. That prompted LAUSD to file its own charge accusing UTLA of bad-faith bargaining.

"UTLA engaged in take-it-or-leave-it bargaining, making virtually no compromises toward reaching an agreement for the better part of 16 months, LAUSD General Counsel David Holmquist said in a statement. "UTLA talked openly about a strike long before the parties even began negotiations, let alone reached an impasse. It is now conducting a strike vote even though the parties have not even held their first mediation session.”

In fact, UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl has been talking about a strike ever since he became president of UTLA. Two years ago, he told his members that “the next year-and-a-half must be founded upon building our capacity to strike, and our capacity to create a state crisis, in early 2018.”

That prompted one commentator in LA School Report, Caroline Bermudez, to take Caputo-Pearl to task: “Threatening to strike should be an absolute last resort, not the first order of action.”

Two years before that, during an earlier UTLA contract negotiation, Caputo-Pearl mentioned a possible strike to a group of bewildered parents at Back to School Night, prompting Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez to write the piece “Is the L.A. teachers union tone deaf?”

“The union has shown little flexibility: not on salary negotiations, tenure, student testing, teacher evaluations or anything else. How do you negotiate with that?” Lopez wrote. “UTLA's political strategy is borrowed in part from the Chicago Teachers Union, which led a strike two years ago that won pay increases for teachers but left bitter feelings all around…Hey, I understand the purpose of union rhetoric in the middle of contract negotiations…But a strike would be disastrous for students, parents and even teachers. And it could drive even more families out of the district or into the charter schools the union so despises.”  

Garcetti, in his remarks last week, also emphasized the importance of avoiding a strike, which will deprive kids of an education. "We need to make sure teachers are in schools and that children have teachers,” he told reporters Friday. “I will do anything that I can to make sure there is not a strike, or, if a strike is called, to directly intervene in negotiations.”

Meanwhile, UTLA claimed in its own unfair labor practice charge that LAUSD’s quick response to a Public Records Request from a KPCC reporter seeking  Caputo-Pearl’s employee disciplinary record was somehow an attempt to interfere with its strike vote. That’s despite the fact that the Los Angeles Times already published a story in 2014 based on those records, showing that Caputo-Pearl faced discipline for allegedly leaving campus during the school day to campaign for the union presidency, missing hours that added up to 17 days. 

An LAUSD spokeswoman said that the legal process for responding to a reporter’s request for public records “has nothing whatsoever to do with negotiations.”

However, one district source speculated that UTLA might be attempting to lay the groundwork for what’s called an “unfair practice” strike in order to bypass mediation and hold a strike on its preferred timeline. 

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, UTLA representative Glenn Sacks said “the strike is scheduled to begin Oct. 3,” even though the first mediation session between the two sides won’t happen until Sept. 27. UTLA is required by law to go through mediation, followed by a fact-finding process, before it is legally allowed to strike, making a legal strike on Oct. 3 almost impossible.

UTLA has been infuriated by the late September mediation start date, which makes a strike in October more difficult, and UTLA lawyers have complained to the Public Employee Relations Board, which oversees the bargaining process. LAUSD believes all of this is evidence that UTLA is not engaged in good-faith bargaining, and the goal all along has been to strike rather than reach a deal.   

”Upon Commencement of The Impasse process, UTLA Issues Histrionical Demands That The Mediation Process Wrap-Up Quickly So That It Could Commence Its Strike In October,” LAUSD wrote in its unfair labor practice charge. “When the schedule was not swift enough, UTLA went around the assigned mediator, writing to the Chief mediator, and demanding that mediation be bypassed, and the matter certified to fact finding, so that UTLA could strike as soon as possible…When that request was denied, UTLA, in violation of PERB rules, wrote directly to the PERB General Counsel and the Board itself, demanding that the process be expedited.”

Because of UTLA’s take-it-or-leave-it final offer, with $3 billion of demands that Beutner has said would lead to instant insolvency, Holmquist said, “it is clear that UTLA wishes to coerce the district into making what would be irresponsible financial decisions.”

The LA County Office of Education (LACOE) Chief Financial Officer, Candi Clark, made a surprise visit to the August 21 LAUSD Board meeting to underscore the serious fiscal situation facing LAUSD. Clark reminded the board that LACOE, which oversees the LAUSD budget, has the power to rescind the board’s decision-making authority if LAUSD spends more than laid out in its fiscal stabilization plan.

Garcetti, according to the Los Angeles Times, said that he empathized with teachers but also realizes that the district is in danger of going “off a cliff” financially, which would lead to “larger class sizes, possible layoffs, etc. So I think that it’s very important to live inside the means that we have.”

UTLA’s strike authorization vote is expected to conclude Thursday. Holmquist said that UTLA’s conduct throughout the bargaining process, including the timing of the strike authorization vote, “violates the Educational Employment Relations Act. The District has requested an expedited hearing and looks forward to presenting all the evidence."

The Chief Financial Officer for the Los Angeles County Office of Education, which oversees LAUSD finances, made a surprise appearance at Tuesday’s LAUSD Board meeting with a stern warning: LACOE is closely monitoring labor negotiations and could remove decision-making authority from the LAUSD Board if it does not keep the district’s precarious fiscal house in order.

“LACOE has the authority to assign a fiscal expert or a fiscal advisor with stay and rescind authority over board actions in order to stabilize the district’s financial situation,” LACOE CFO Candi Clark said at public comment. “I am sure that everyone agrees with me that local control is in the best interest of the students and parents of LAUSD. The fact is that LAUSD is ‘not’ too big to fail, so it is up to all of us to resolve the district’s fiscal challenges.”

Her comments come just as LAUSD teachers begin to vote Thursday on whether to authorize United Teachers Los Angeles leaders to call a strike. LAUSD Superintendent Austin Beutner has warned UTLA that its $3 billion take-it-or-leave-it demands would immediately lead to insolvency and state takeover.

But UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl has repeatedly given his teacher members the false impression that the district’s financial health is fine.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Clark reiterated what LAUSD CFO Scott Price has been telling the Board for months -- that LAUSD has a structural deficit that will eat through all the money that it’s is required by law to keep in the bank unless cuts are made.

“The only thing standing between the district and a qualified budget right now is $3.9 million dollars, which is next to nothing,” Clark said. “This is a major concern as we review the district’s budget, considering the fact that the district is declining in enrollment, has uncapped health and welfare benefits for all staff and dependents, and the fact that [UTLA] negotiations are still unsettled. We are carefully monitoring negotiations and we urge the district to continue to make progress towards implementing with fidelity the fiscal stabilization plan.”

All six LAUSD Board members released a joint statement Tuesday opposing a strike, which they said  "pits adults versus adults when students and their families will bear the brunt of a strike action.”

Speak UP wholeheartedly agrees that a strike will harm kids unnecessarily by depriving them of their right to an education and possibly supervision during school hours. Families may have to find alternative childcare and face lost wages as a result. The burden will be the greatest on low-income families that make up a large portion of the district.

“We hope the shared responsibility to put students first will lead to a common sense resolution that acknowledges the hard work of our employees while addressing the safety and instructional needs of students and the financial solvency of L.A. Unified," the statement from all six Board members said.

Board President Monica Garcia (BD2) read the statement aloud at Tuesday’s LAUSD Board meeting at which the Board unanimously approved labor agreements with the administrators union, AALA, and the union for office workers, CSEA. Those agreements, along with the agreement approved for SEIU, means LAUSD has been able to settle on a contract with 60 percent of its workforce.

All of those employees will receive about a 6 percent raise over the course of their contract terms, and Beutner has said repeatedly he’d like to make a similar deal with a similar salary increase for teachers.

In a statement released Sunday, LAUSD also sought to address misinformation that United Teachers Los Angeles President Alex Caputo-Pearl has been sharing with his members in order to gin up support for a strike, which he has been calling for publicly for two years.

“UTLA leadership has claimed the District ‘is trying to dodge the mediation question’ and [is] ‘refusing to meet’... However, L.A. Unified has accepted September 27, 2018, which is a date offered by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) mediators in accordance with California labor law to resume bargaining,” the statement said.

The statement also explained why strikes in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona and Kentucky would differ from an LAUSD strike. Those strikes were statewide teacher strikes that led to increases in state funding.

“Funding for school districts in California is set at the state level in Sacramento, not by the L.A. Unified Board of Education,” the statement said. “A UTLA strike at the local level will do nothing to increase funding for L.A. Unified.”

We urge parents to talk to their teachers and encourage them to vote no on a strike and make a fair deal with LAUSD.

It was good news, bad news for parents in Board District 5 on Tuesday.

The good news: A special election will be held March 5 to fill the vacant seat formerly held by Ref Rodriguez, and an attempt by the teachers union to rush through a single appointee, Jackie Goldberg, failed on a 4-2 vote. 

That was thanks, in large part, to the powerful testimony of a group of Speak UP parents from the Southeast part of the district, who spoke passionately about their desire to be heard.

“Do you care about my civil rights? Do you care about democracy and my right to vote?” asked Raquel Toscano, a Speak UP parent from Bell with two kids at Maywood Center for Enrichment Studies, an LAUSD magnet school in BD5. “It is completely undemocratic to rush through this appointment without giving the community – especially Latino families from the Southeast -- a chance to consider other potential candidates. That shows no respect for us and our rights.”

The bad news: An effort by Board Vice President Nick Melvoin (BD4) to allow the community to nominate multiple candidates to fill the seat until an election is held, also deadlocked in a 3-3 vote, meaning that BD5 parents may go unrepresented for an entire school year.

Even though the city charter was recently changed at LAUSD’s request to allow an interim voting appointee to fill a seat until a special election is held, Richard Vladovic (BD7) was the lone Board member who opposed the concept of an interim appointee altogether.

He argued that families did not need representation during most of the 2018-19 school year because LAUSD Superintendent Austin Beutner, the local superintendents and BD5 staffers could take care of their needs. 

“I will not support appointing anyone,” Vladovic said. “That superintendent of that district is responsible for every child. In the next few months, nobody’s going to get hurt. Nothing’s going to go wrong. I’m not worried.”

Board Members George McKenna (BD1) and Scott Schmerelson (BD3) both voted to appoint Goldberg. McKenna made threats that while Goldberg had promised not to run for the seat if appointed, she might actually decide to run if the board did not appoint her. Then Board members who don’t want her could get stuck with her longer, he argued.

Goldberg said after the meeting that she has not decided whether to enter the race, which is expected to be a crowded field.

Melvoin and Board Members Kelly Gonez (BD6) and President Monica Garcia (BD2) all supported a more open and transparent process allowing anyone to volunteer or nominate an interim appointee that the Board would then consider on Sept. 11.

While both measures on interim appointees failed, it’s still possible that a consensus appointee could emerge and win support both from the reformers and at least one of the two labor-backed Board members, McKenna or Schmerelson.

Speak UP urges the five Board members who supported the concept of an interim appointee to put aside any differences and work together with all the stakeholders in BD5 to find a less polarizing person to serve all stakeholders and constituents. 

McKenna, who himself was willing to be appointed when the BD1 seat last became vacant, spoke powerfully about the need for representation during a crucial year in which the district is expected to be restructured. He was the sole Board member who voted against a March special election because he wanted an election right after the winter break in January.

While families argued that a January election would get lost in the holiday season, would not allow them time to get to know the many candidates and would likely depress parent voter turnout, McKenna pushed for the earlier election time. “I’m not OK with letting the seat go so long without being represented,” McKenna said.

Neither are we. Given the desire of both parents and five of six Board members to make sure families are represented during the 2018-19 school year, there is still an opportunity for the Board to transcend the divisive politics of the past and to put the needs of the kids first. We hope that happens.

We urge the Board to do the right thing and to revisit Melvoin’s more open and transparent process allowing the community to help find an interim appointee for the sake of the kids. With a fair and open process, we believe the right interim representative can be found.

The LAUSD Board has a chance to vote for democracy, transparency and diversity Tuesday as it considers two resolutions to fill the Board District 5 seat that’s been vacant since Ref Rodriguez resigned last month.

Speak UP strongly supports the resolution introduced by Board President Monica Garcia (BD2) and Vice President Nick Melvoin (BD4) calling for a special election on March 5 to fill the seat. First and foremost, parents believe it’s critical to hold a democratic election and allow voters to choose their representative, and a March election will maximize voter turnout.

There’s already an election scheduled in one of the southeast cities within BD5 that day, and a March election gives parents time to get to know the many candidates expressing an interest in running for the seat. Voters are accustomed to voting in city elections in March, and an election any sooner could depress voter turnout.

Valley Republican Scott Schmerelson (BD3) has introduced a second resolution to appoint Jackie Goldberg to the seat. Goldberg is a career politician, endorsed by the teachers union, who served on the school Board and in the state assembly years ago.

She opposes school choice and has spoken out harshly at the Board against the hiring of Superintendent Austin Beutner, whom she called “unqualified.” She also stood before the Board that she is now asking to appoint her and accused both Melvoin (BD4) and Board Member Kelly Gonez (BD6) of selling their souls “to the devil.”

Speak UP urges a no vote on Schmerelson’s resolution as it’s currently written. While Speak UP’s BD5 parents support the concept of choosing a short-term appointee to fill the seat for the 6 ½ months until the special election is held, parents want a more open and transparent process that allows them to bring multiple candidates forward and weigh their individual merits.

Melvoin is expected to propose an amendment to Schmerelson’s resolution that would create an “urgent, open, and transparent process to ensure that the constituents of Board District 5 are adequately represented by an interim, appointed, voting member of the Board.”

Melvoin’s amendment would allow anyone in the community to nominate candidates to fill the seat during an interim period before an election is held. Nominations will be accepted until Aug. 28, and applicants must submit resumes, proof of residence in the district and statements on why they should be appointed, why they would best serve constituents in BD5 and how they see themselves working with other members of the Board. The Board would then consider appointing candidates from the list on Sept. 11.

Melvoin’s amendment is excellent news for parents in the southeast cities, who have expressed a strong interest in considering some Latino candidates who are in touch with the needs of the majority Latino population in Board District 5.

BD5 includes the northeast neighborhoods of Silver Lake, Eagle Rock, Los Feliz, Mount Washington and Echo Park, as well as predominantly Latino communities of Huntington Park, Maywood, South Gate, Vernon and Bell in the southeast.

Political Consultant Mike Trujillo was appointed by Board Member Richard Vladovic (BD7) to sit on LAUSD’s redistricting commission, which drew the current boundaries of Board District 5. The seat has historically been a “majority Latino seat,” Trujillo said, and when they redrew the boundaries, the Voting Rights Act required them to draw BD5 as a majority Latino district to maximize the chances of Latino representation.

“The seat was specifically drawn to help elect a minority, in this case [from] the Latino community,” Trujillo said. “You can obviously elect anyone you want. We live in a democracy, but this is a civil rights-inspired, Voting Rights Act-required seat we drew in LAUSD.”

Appointing a non-Latino candidate like Goldberg to the seat, even temporarily, “is definitely not in the spirit of the law,” Trujillo said. “It would seem contrary to what LAUSD’s own commission did” when it drew the district. 

While a special election is likely to get the support of four members, Board members Melvoin, Garcia, Vladovic and Gonez are expected to vote no on appointing Goldberg to the seat. Vladovic has indicated that he opposes the appointment of any candidate.

It’s unclear whether Melvoin has the votes for his amendment creating an open and transparent process for an appointment, but Schmerelson, Board Member George McKenna, Melvoin and Garcia have all expressed interest in interim appointments either now or in the past.

It also remains to be seen whether the Board can eventually find a consensus candidate to serve as an interim appointee. Any appointee would need support from both reform-minded and labor-backed Board members.  

LAUSD is making it clear to United Teachers Los Angeles that it wants to avert a painful strike by offering teachers the same 6 percent raises that other employees are getting. UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl, however, continues to shoot down the notion that such a deal is possible.

After a five-hour LAUSD Board retreat Wednesday exploring the district’s healthcare cost crisis, Beutner met with Caputo-Pearl and sent him a follow-up letter mentioning the raises that administrators, bus drivers and others are getting, saying he wanted to reach a “similar agreement” to give teachers raises and was willing to meet any time to work out a deal.

“We must do everything possible to keep our schools open so our students don’t miss the opportunity to receive the best education possible,” Beutner wrote. “We want to minimize any disruption to students, their hand-working families and the communities we serve. We hope UTLA shares this goal. I am reminded of an old adage, ‘when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.’ It is a responsibility we share, despite our differences, to make sure students are protected.”

UTLA is asking for 6.5 percent raises retroactive to 2016-17, one year earlier than LAUSD is willing to apply any increase. Nevertheless, with just a half-percentage point separating UTLA’s salary demands from what LAUSD has budgeted and seems willing to offer, the differences between the two sides on teacher raises hardly seem insurmountable.

Even so, UTLA recently declared an impasse in talks, sending the two sides to mediation. While Beutner said that he and the union had “found common ground” in the Wednesday meeting, Caputo-Pearl later dismissed the idea that a deal is possible.

“There is not the outline of a deal,” he told the Los Angeles Times. “Nothing could be farther from the truth.”

Caputo-Pearl’s comments lend credence to suggestions that he wants a strike no matter what LAUSD offers teachers – in order to bolster his own career and land a bigger job once he terms out.

Such a move would clearly harm kids by depriving them of their right to an education. And for the many LAUSD families who rely on schools for breakfast and lunch, and who will lose wages if forced to take off work to care for their children, the burden of a strike is potentially devastating.

The district-union deadlock is especially puzzling given that UTLA negotiated a deal in the spring to maintain LAUSD’s extremely generous health benefits for all employees for three years. While no changes to health plans are on the table in these contract talks, the cost of retiree healthcare remains one of the biggest reasons LAUSD is teetering on the brink of insolvency.

LAUSD Chief Financial Officer Scott Price told the Board Wednesday that LAUSD spends more on retiree healthcare benefits and offers far more generous plans to retirees than other districts in the state, including San Francisco, San Diego, Long Beach, Oakland and San Jose.

Other districts offer either no health program for retirees or a more limited program for retirees, and they require retirees to make a contribution. LAUSD offers free lifetime healthcare for retirees and their spouses after a certain number of years of service.

There are three main causes of LAUSD’s financial problems, Price said: healthcare costs, pension costs and employee salaries. Pension costs are set by the state, and there’s nothing LAUSD can do about it. So LAUSD is left with only two choices without the increased state funding that the superintendent believes all stakeholders should fight for: either rein in retiree healthcare costs, or start laying off many current employees (which would likely lead to big class-size increases, too).

SU: It sounds like they want to strike, and that is going to impact kids. How are you going to deal with that?

AB: It goes back to community values. Does a strike benefit students? Does a strike benefit parents? Does a strike benefit the community? Does a strike benefit the members? My mom was a teacher for many years, part of strike votes at different points in her career. And one should always ask the question, what is the strike about? Is it about the series of economic demands, which couldn't be met even if Santa Claus came down and said, "Santa Claus can bargain for the district." Santa's sleigh does not have a billion and a half dollars in it.

SU: Is there a chance they're trying to force the state to provide more funding?

AB: The last time I looked, the state’s not in this bargaining. What we have proposed, and what we have agreed to with all of the other bargaining units, is together, let's go to the state. We should be working together, so that by 2020 we have made the case to the public at large, to the voters, that we need additional resources. This will wind up being something on a ballot in 2020. And we should be working to build support for it.

I fail to see how a strike builds support for that. It’s pretty clear to me the interests of the students, the parents, the communities we serve and every one of our employees – teachers included  – that we’re all better off if we can avoid a strike. We have settled on a fair basis with our other bargaining units for approximately 6 percent [raises]. We hope we can reach a fair resolution with UTLA.

SU: Kids are obviously greatly impacted by these contract talks. Why aren’t parents given a seat at the table to represent the interests of kids?

AB: That's a good question. I view this table we're sitting at – everyone belongs at this table. We should be open, and a parent  – they should sit at this table. If parents tell us we want fewer magnets, we will have fewer magnets. If parents tell us we want more, then we will fight like heck to make sure we have more. So they should be engaged with us, and anything we can do to better inform parents about what's working and what's not working, we think we’ll have a better outcome.

SU: Parents often feel like they're shouting into the wind. They have no systemic power that gives their voices any weight.

AB: They do have power. They can vote. They should vote. 

SU: Definitely, although undocumented parents cannot vote in LA school Board elections, and we have a lot of undocumented parents in L.A. Unified.

AB: Undocumented parents have friends, neighbors, colleagues who are voters. So their ability to influence the outcome is making their voice heard loudly and consistently. We think they have a good message, which is they're advocating for their child, the student. We’re going to try to do a better job of sharing what we think is important in the contract and how we can change things. We need parents in that room with us, making more informed, better choices.  

Despite the fact that LAUSD has budgeted in raises equivalent to those recently negotiated by unions for administrators and classified employees, UTLA has declared that it’s at an impasse in labor negotiations, increasing the likelihood of a teachers strike later this fall.

UTLA is asking for salary increases greater than the 6 percent being given to other LAUSD employees. If LAUSD met all the demands in UTLA’s take-it-or-leave-it final offer made last week, the district “would immediately become bankrupt,” LAUSD’s Director of Labor Relations Najeeb Khoury wrote in a strongly worded letter sent to UTLA Friday. “The consequences of bankruptcy would be harmful for students, employees, including UTLA members, and the communities we serve.”

In addition to salary demands, UTLA is threatening to strike, in part, because it wants to limit the number of new magnet school options offered to kids in the future. And UTLA also refuses create a new “highly effective” teacher evaluation category to recognize the best and highest-performing teachers, which would allow LAUSD to study their methods and replicate them to help more kids.

Khoury’s letter to UTLA Friday claimed that the union has been “unwilling to negotiate” in good faith. “The District is disappointed that UTLA, within a span of three weeks, declared impasse, withdrew that request, and has now declared impasse again, after having given the District forty-eight hours to accept or reject its ‘Final Offer,’” the letter said. “Between the two declarations, UTLA did not change its proposal” substantially and has not done so since April 2017.

The union based its original strike threat on protecting healthcare benefits. But UTLA was able to ink a three-year deal earlier this year to maintain healthcare contributions at the present level for three years and keep free lifetime healthcare benefits for employees and spouses without any monthly contribution –- even though the deal threatens the solvency of the district.

Given that status-quo healthcare deal and salary raises the district is offering, it’s unclear what exactly would make UTLA stand down from its strike threat. It’s widely believed that UTLA is intent on striking regardless of what LAUSD offers and regardless of how it may harm kids who won’t be educated while teachers walk off their jobs.

UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl, who is terming out and may be eyeing his next job, made his intentions explicit two years ago. “The next year-and-a-half must be founded upon building our capacity to strike, and our capacity to create a state crisis, in early 2018,” Caputo-Pearl told an audience in July 2016.

Khoury in his letter said that the teachers union in its final offer was insisting upon multiple provisions that would harm kids’ ability to have the “right teachers” at the “right schools.” The union, for instance, wants to make it harder for district schools to convert to magnets and “limit the district’s ability to select teachers with special skills or talents for new magnet schools.”

Currently, when schools convert to magnet status, teachers must reapply for their jobs. This makes sense because a STEM magnet, for instance, may need specialized math, science and engineering teachers that a traditional district school does not have. But UTLA is insisting that all teachers would remain at schools that convert to magnets, making those conversions in name only rather than in substance –- which does not benefit or improve options for kids.

“Parents place a high value on the availability of magnet schools for their children, which is demonstrated by a 35 percent increase in student enrollment in magnet schools over the last seven years," Khoury's letter said. "Student achievement in magnet schools is amongst the highest in LA Unified.”  

In another demand that could harm kids, UTLA wants to get rid of any district flexibility to protect certain teachers from layoffs based on a school's needs. They want teachers laid off strictly based on seniority at all times -- regardless of the school's needs or the quality of the teachers.

UTLA is also insisting upon class size decreases, which, when combined with its salary demands, would increase LAUSD’s deficit by more than $800 million, tipping the district into immediate insolvency and state takeover. Sources say LAUSD is willing to offer to reopen contract talks to reduce class sizes if the state increases its funding to the $20,000 per pupil that LAUSD and UTLA have both been seeking. It is unlikely, however, that there will be any movement on a funding increase anytime soon.

LAUSD said it is willing to negotiate and still has room to move on its latest salary offer, but sources say it makes no sense to do so if UTLA refuses to move from its demands. Mediation is the likely next step for UTLA and LAUSD. Since this process usually takes two-to-four months, observers do not expect a strike to take place before October or November.

Flashback to 2014: After the sudden death of LAUSD Board Member Marguerite LaMotte (BD1), the Board debated whether to hold a special election or make an appointment to fill the seat so that families in South LA would not go for months without any representation.

 Bennett Keyser, who held the seat in Board District 5 before Ref Rodriguez defeated him, was a staunch supporter of an appointment. He argued that a special election would cost too much: “For two to three million, how many librarians could we bring back? How many nurses?” he asked.

Also favoring an appointment was George McKenna, who was not yet on the Board but who was willing to accept the appointment to the seat himself – a move that was supported by prominent lawmakers such as Congresswomen Karen Bass and Maxine Waters.

 The head of the United Teachers Los Angeles union at the time, Warren Fletcher, also supported an appointment, as did his successor, Alex-Caputo Pearl, whose name was also floated as a possible appointee for the seat. “We share the community’s concern that students and parents in District 1 will be voiceless as these crucial votes are taken,” Fletcher said.  

Unfortunately, the City charter in 2014 only allowed for two options: the appointment of a voting member to fill out the entire term or a special election. Some members wanted to make sure voters would decide. But then-Board President Steve Zimmer advocated fiercely for a third way: the appointment of an interim Board member to represent constituents only until a special election could be held.

“I am rarely as adamant about something as I am about this,” Zimmer said. “I favor interim voting representation.”

LAUSD General Counsel David Holmquist also supported the idea but advised Zimmer and the Board that the City charter did not allow it. It’s just not right, Holmquist said in 2014, that existing laws keep the District 1 board seat vacant until after a special election, denying families equal representation for months.

Fortunately, as a result of this 2014 debate, the City of Los Angeles in 2015 changed its charter to handle just such a situation that we face again in the wake of Board Member Ref Rodriguez’s (BD5) resignation. The charter was changed to allow for the appointment of an interim voting member to fill out the term until a special election is held and a new member is elected.

“We reached out to the city and asked for them to make this change,” Holmquist told Speak UP. “I assume the fact that we had that meeting, and our Board expressed that desire, and we heard from the constituents that they wanted that… I believe that was the basis for the change.”

LAUSD Board Member Ref Rodriguez (BD5) resigned from the Board Monday after pleading guilty to charges of conspiracy and reimbursing campaign donors with his own funds. His departure leaves parents and kids in Board District 5 without representation at a critical moment of change under the leadership of LAUSD’s new Superintendent Austin Beutner.

Speak UP joins the parents in District 5 to urge the Board to rapidly appoint a voting member to represent the needs of parents and kids –- at least until a special election can be held. “To leave them without a voting member disenfranchises these parents. It would create an enormous inequity for the students in Board District 5,” said Speak UP Executive Director Katie Braude, who called it “a sad day for the kids of Los Angeles.”

Board President Monica Garcia (BD2) and Vice President Nick Melvoin (BD4) released a joint statement saying they “hope to convene the Board in the coming weeks to collaboratively decide” what to do. “While we would like to ensure no break in representation for District 5 by appointing a temporary voting representative as soon as possible, we would also like to call a special election to fill the vacancy as soon as we can. A Board majority will have to agree to a plan.”

The Board has 60 days to call a special election, and filing deadlines make it unlikely that an election could be held this November in conjunction with the midterms. Board Member Kelly Gonez (BD6), who is on maternity leave, released her own statement saying that questions about what happens next “will be answered in due time. In the meantime, I hope we can work to restore the public’s trust in the process, and each rededicate ourselves to strengthening public education for all kids in Los Angeles.”

But parents in Board District 5 were not happy to be left in limbo. Huntington Park parent and Speak UP member Gloria Rodriguez (no relation to Ref Rodriguez), has one child attending a traditional LAUSD school and one at a charter school. She cried when she heard the news of the resignation.

“We’ve never had anybody support us the way that he did,” she said. “Ref had an open-door policy. He really listened and acted, and that’s something that we’ve never had before. He did it for everybody. Kids first – all kids, period. The parents at my parent center are really upset. We’re just wondering, so now what? We don’t know what’s going to happen.”

Ref Rodriguez released a statement apologizing to his constituents after appearing in court Monday and receiving probation, community service and a $100,000 fine. “It has been the honor of my life to serve the communities of Board District 5 as their L.A. Unified board member. My life’s work has been to serve others. It will remain the same — I will just pursue that work from a different position. Today, I resign from the L.A. Unified Board to resume my role as a private citizen and community advocate. Thank you to the parents, students, community members, my staff, and everyone who has given me their unwavering support. I am sorry for the mistakes I have made.”

While a small group of parents showed up in court to demand his resignation, many parents continued to support Rodriguez in spite of his legal troubles because of their direct experiences with him as a Board member and champion for LAUSD’s most vulnerable kids.

Rodriguez was an openly gay pioneer for LGBTQ students and was responsible for moving the district toward more compassionate restorative justice discipline model-- interrupting the school-to-prison pipeline. He was also the Board’s strongest proponent of early childhood education, passing a Birth to 8 Roadmap to improve early literacy.

“We certainly don’t condone unlawful actions, and we appreciate that Ref Rodriguez has taken responsibility for his mistakes,” Braude said. “During his time on the Board, however, Ref was always a champion for the rights of kids and parents. His first action as president of the Board was to pass the Kids First resolution, which mandated putting the needs of kids before the needs of adults. Ref and his staff were always responsive to the needs of students in his district and the parents who reached out to him. The families of Board District 5 deserve a representative who will continue to put kids first, respect parent choices and respond to parent concerns.”

Rodriguez was especially welcomed by the parents in the southeastern portion of BD5, where the primarily low-income Latino parents have felt disenfranchised compared to wealthier northern parts of the district such as Silver Lake. “Not only did he have the same story as many of us, but he spoke Spanish,” said Gloria Rodriguez. “We haven’t had that in so many years.”  

She’s also grateful that Rodriguez personally supported her lesbian daughter after she faced insensitive treatment from school staff and that he sponsored a resolution to add more sensitivity training and other help for LGBTQ kids. “He helped my daughter and many others,” she said.

It’s not yet clear how Rodriguez’ departure will affect the politics on the Board. With only six voting members, the potential for gridlock certainly increases. But while Rodriguez voted reliably to put the interests of kids before the interests of adults and supported efforts to reform LAUSD, there’s been no consistent voting bloc on the Board, and alliances have often shifted in unpredictable ways.

Board Member Richard Vladovic (BD7), for instance, has proven to be a key swing vote. He was one of the strongest proponents for hiring Beutner to lead the district through its current financial crisis, and he supports Beutner’s plans to “disrupt” and radically decentralize the district.

With the departure of Rodriguez, Vladovic has emerged as one of the most powerful members – if not the most powerful member — on the entire Board. With his support, Beutner retains the backing of the Board majority even without Rodriguez there, which is crucial to his job security.

LAUSD will not place a school parcel tax on the November ballot after the Board deadlocked in a 3-3 vote, following Superintendent Austin Beutner’s request to delay the effort until 2020 so the district will have more time to launch a successful campaign.

“Proper planning for a ballot initiative like this takes months and years, not weeks,” Beutner said. “And the district has not done planning on how the parcel tax would be implemented or how the money would be spent. Nor has the district done the preparation necessary to run a successful campaign so the taxpayers would support it.”

Board President Monica Garcia (BD2), Vice President Nick Melvoin (BD4) and Ref Rodriguez (BD5) sided with Beutner and voted no, while Board Members George McKenna (BD1), Richard Vladovic (BD7) and Scott Schmerelson (BD3) voted yes. Board Member Kelly Gonez (BD6) was out on maternity leave and did not attend.

Everyone on the Board agreed the district is in the midst of a financial crisis and needs more revenue. The debate centered on the best strategy and timing for achieving that goal, as well as the issue of who would benefit if the parcel tax passed.

Independent charter school parents testified that the parcel tax resolution specifically excluded them and their kids’ schools.

“Stop separating us and treating us like bad guys because we want good schools for our kids, too,” said Fenton Avenue charter parent Roxann Nazario. “We need to start working together and seeing ourselves as one and stop letting all this political B.S. separate us.”

But even after Vladovic offered to add language clarifying that charters should be included and should get revenue proportional to their population, the resolution was still rejected. That was, in large part, due to the district’s own recent polling, which showed that a parcel tax large enough to close LAUSD’s projected deficit was likely to fail in November but could succeed in 2020, when voter turnout in a presidential election year is far higher.

“The data from recent polling, the lack of preparation make it clear the district is not likely be successful,” Beutner said. “I believe a better option is to properly do this by 2020 when we can be successful.”

The LAUSD Board votes Tuesday on a resolution condemning President Donald Trump’s “inhumane and irresponsible” separation of immigrant children from their parents and calling on the district to help reunite families and provide mental healthcare and potentially legal help to any forcibly separated children attending LAUSD schools.

“What we are seeing is barbaric,” said Board President Monica Garcia (BD2), who is co-sponsoring the “Putting Kids First Means Keeping Families Together” resolution with Vice President Nick Melvoin (BD4) and Board Member Kelly Gonez (BD6). “Our country is better than what we see in this moment in time…The immigration experience is a central identity element for many of our employees and families. We have a responsibility to speak out to demand an end to this trauma.”

Speak UP, which organized and co-sponsored the “Keep Families Together: Rally and Toy Drive” protest against Trump’s family separation policies at the Federal Building in Westwood last month, strongly supports the resolution. Speak UP parent leaders Annie Hall and Gloria Rodriguez spoke at the rally, as did Melvoin.   

“We’ll be judged by how we treat the most vulnerable among us, by how we treat our children. And let me be clear: These are all our children,” Melvoin told the crowd gathered at the Westwood rally. Two members of Melvoin’s staff also recently traveled to Washington, D.C. and risked arrest during peaceful acts of civil disobedience protesting family separations.

Tuesday’s resolution vote takes place on the same day that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has ordered Trump to reunite the youngest children under age 5 with their parents – a deadline the Trump administration has said it is unable to meet for nearly half the children because it has lost track of many parents, including some the administration deported without their children.

While the federal government has shared very little information with LAUSD about the children it has separated from their parents and how many might be attending LAUSD schools, the resolution directs the Student Health and Human Services division “to seek out and ensure that any student identified as having suffered forcible family separation receives necessary health and mental health services” and to address the “emotional, mental, and physical trauma caused by forcible separation policies.”

The office of Foster Youth will also create a plan to identify LAUSD youth placed in foster homes that were forcibly separated from their parents and will make a concerted effort to help reunite them with their families “until every possible avenue for doing so is exhausted.”

Finally, the resolution directs the district’s chief lobbyist to advocate for a permanent end to immigrant family separation policies and for quick reunification of separated families, as well as LAUSD’s lawyers to investigate the creation of a program to provide free legal services to any district families who have suffered from forcible separation.

Also on the agenda is a proposal from Board Members George McKenna (BD1) and Scott Schmerelson (BD3) to place a parcel tax on the November ballot to close LAUSD’s projected budget deficit looming in 2020.

Rebecca Kockler, whose work as Louisiana’s head of academics increased student academic achievement and teacher effectiveness, has been named Chief of Staff to LAUSD Superintendent Austin Beutner.

With a strong track record during six years at Louisiana’s Department of Education, Kockler brings a depth of experience in education that the teachers union has criticized Beutner for lacking.

“I have been a career educator from the moment I graduated college,” she told Speak UP. “I’m part of a family of career educators. My mother’s a principal. My brother’s a principal. We sit around the dinner table and talk about curriculum implementation. This is what I do. I am an academic person through and through.” 

Kockler, a graduate of the prestigious education leadership fellowship at the Broad Academy, has also worked for Teacher For America as a vice president and senior managing director of its Teacher Support Team, and as a middle school teacher in Newark, New Jersey. During her tenure as Assistant Superintendent of Academic Content, Louisiana become the fastest-improving state on several national metrics including Advanced Placement exams and 4th grade NAEP English tests.

“Rebecca is a terrific addition to our team,” Beutner said. “Her work in Louisiana helped narrow long-standing achievement gaps, resulting in the state’s highest ever graduation rate, while increasing standards and course requirements, and improving ACT scores for all students. As a career educator, she will help our district deliver on our promise of providing every student with a high-quality education.”

Having turned around a large system of 700,000 students, which had been failing, Kockler believes she can help do the same for LAUSD. “People don’t believe that our big systems can serve kids. I think that’s completely wrong, and we have to prove that a really large system can serve every single child, including our most struggling students. Louisiana was historically one of the lowest-performing states in the country, and, in fact, it’s [now] the fastest improving on most metrics.”

Board President Monica Garcia (BD2) said she was inspired “by her commitment to serving all kids, and her experience in closing opportunity and achievement gaps in large public school systems.”