School Board Candidate Tanya Ortiz Franklin's Mission: Get More Kids to College

Speak UP has conducted interviews with all of the 2020 LAUSD board candidates who responded to our candidate questionnaire for the March 3 primary. This is the third in a series of three interviews with District 7 candidates featured on our 2020 Election Watch page. Speak UP has not made any endorsements.

Tanya Ortiz Franklin is an educator and attorney who works for the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools. She taught English and history for five years at Stephen White middle school, and she now focuses on restorative justice, social emotional learning and teacher and principal coaching at 18 high-needs LAUSD schools. She grew up in District 7, which runs from South L.A. to San Pedro, and she graduated from Narbonne High, Columbia University and UCLA School of Law. 

Speak UP: Tell us about yourself and why you’re running for school board.

Tanya: My story, as with lots of folks, starts with my mom. She immigrated to this country as a kid from Ciudad Juarez in Mexico. I'm grateful she immigrated nearly 60 years ago because had it been today, she likely would've been caged and separated from her family. Like so many others, my grandfather moved my mom and her siblings to the U.S. for educational and economic opportunity. My mom came to California, raised me by herself in Lomita.

My parents separated when I was really young, so I would go to my Dad's house, and I have step-brothers who grew up in Redondo and Palos Verdes. So even as a kid, I was already seeing differences in different communities based on resources. I went to L.A. Unified,  [graduated from] Narbonne High School in Harbor City. So District 7 is home for me. When I went to L.A. Unified, I was tested for gifted and [was] therefore tracked.

It was hugely important because it set me up for a path really different from the majority of my peers. In middle school, I was in honors classes. In high school, I was in AP classes, and I went to a magnet high school within my local school. So the conversation about college definitely happened in my classes, but it didn't happen everywhere. I asked our assistant principal how many freshmen we had, compared to how many are graduating? And he said, we were about 1,000 when we came in and about 420 when we graduated. At 17, I knew that wasn't right. That wasn't fair.

Speak UP: So the majority of kids did not graduate?

Tanya: Right. Thankfully graduation rates have doubled since then. Still, what’s the college going and college completion culture for the majority of the kids in L.A. Unified? About half of kids are eligible for UC or Cal State, of those that graduate. So we have a long way to go, given that our economy really requires more college degrees. I was the only kid from my school to go to an Ivy League. I went to Columbia in New York City and was super fortunate to do that but also met kids from the Northeast who had gone to private boarding schools and had very different upbringings. So my educational equity consciousness really hit in high school, early college.

My freshman year of college, I saw a recruitment flyer that said one in 10 kids from low-income communities graduate from college. Teach to change this. And it was for Teach for America. So I met with the recruitment director, my freshman year at college and asked, “Can I sign up now? “And she was like “No, this is once you graduate.” But I knew since then that I was going to join. I wanted to teach in a community like mine. And I wanted to work on educational equity and more kids having opportunities for college. 

I came back to L.A., taught in the middle school that fed into my high school for five years. I did my two-year core with TFA and stayed in the classroom until I was laid off.  

Speak UP: During the recession? Was that because of LAUSD’s Last In, First Out Policy? You lacked seniority?

Tanya: Yes. 2010. I actually wrote a declaration for both the Reed lawsuit and the Vergara lawsuit [challenging the LIFO rules].  

Speak UP: And why are you running?

Tanya: There's this theme in my life of being mission-driven so that more kids have more access to college and choice. After I got laid off from teaching, I went to UCLA for law school. UCLA is also very much about public service and a social justice framework. I came to the Partnership For Los Angeles Schools, which is where I've been since my first summer in law school because our mission is about transforming schools and revolutionizing school systems so that all kids have a high-quality education. I started [working for them full time] on teacher development and evaluation. I loved it, coaching alongside principals and teachers and teacher leaders. And then I separated, came back to focus on school culture, discipline, social-emotional learning and attendance and school climate. That's what I've been doing for the last six years there.

Speak UP: I know you’ve focused on training teachers in restorative justice for the Partnership. Can you explain what the Partnership is?

Tanya: The Partnership for LA Schools has an MOU [Memorandum of Understanding] with L.A. Unified to manage 18 traditional district schools in Boyle Heights, South LA, and Watts. And the MOU gives us flexibility to hire and support principals, to offer different curriculum, to coach our teachers, to invest deeply in our families. Our big theory of change is that if we invest in the adults that support our kids, our leaders, our teachers, our families, then together we'll transform schools. When we come up against barriers, [we advocate at the district to] remove those, not only for our schools but for similarly situated schools. And where we find successes, [we examine] how to scale it for other schools in high-need communities.

Speak UP: So it's essentially reform within the LAUSD system? Parent education is a big part of that right?

Tanya: Absolutely. We’ve had a group of parents build their leadership and advocacy skills through our staple Parent College program, choosing their own issues, around safety and funding and great schools for kids in your community. We don't supplant the district. We supplement with additional philanthropic funds, a little over $11 million to fund about 60 staff members at the home office across our 18 schools.

Speak UP: How are those schools doing? These were some of the lowest-performing schools before the Partnership came in.    

Tanya: Overwhelming growth. If you look at our proficiency numbers overall, we still have a long way to go. It’s important to tell both stories.

Speak UP: And how is the restorative justice piece working? I know in a lot of places, teachers feel like restorative justice is a great idea but hard to implement without enough good training. Is it working well at the Partnership?

Tanya: It is. We differentiate for each school. The biggest lever for us is teacher leadership. We offer a stipend for folks who will spend an additional 20 hours per month learning about restorative practices, facilitating professional development. It is hard, and I think the majority of my time in the week, the first few years of implementing restorative approaches, was just sitting in a circle with teachers to say, “What are you currently doing? What's working for you, what feels right, what's hard? Let's try it on and practice.” So often teachers are performing and don't have a lot of time to practice and get feedback. Anytime you implement something new in a district or in a school, teachers need time to be learners, and that's the No. 1 thing that makes it work.

Speak UP: Are Partnership schools freed up from the standard UTLA contract? Is that how you can give teachers incentives for extra training?

Tanya: The Partnership schools are a part of all collective bargaining agreements. We have some codified waivers and additional flexibilities.

Speak UP: Is that a model you'd like to see expanded or replicated at the district?

Tanya: One of the things that I've learned working at the Partnership is you really have to differentiate for schools that have most historically struggled. The model of the Partnership isn't necessary everywhere because different communities have different resources. But in the highest-need communities, we only add about $650 per student in our communities, but it makes a huge difference in terms of growth. In communities that have most historically been neglected, we have to do more and better and different support. The Partnership is a really good model for that.

Speak UP: What do you hope to accomplish on the school board?  

Tanya: This open seat in District 7, which is home for me and where I've spent my entire career, is really important. District 7 is the swing seat between status quo or progress. There are several school board members who have been pushing for progress around holistic college preparation, decision-making at school sites, additional resources and with a real lens toward equity. District 7's elected leader will be the one to say yes or no. I want that voice to be always towards equity, always towards progress, always towards holistic college completion and the opportunity for every kid.  

Speak UP: Which board members do you think are working toward progress?

Tanya: The first person I sat down with was Kelly [Gonez]. We have a lot of similarities in terms of our backgrounds, having taught for a couple of years and being interested in policy. And then I talked to Monica [Garcia]. Monica, I've known the longest. I was an intern in her office. She's always been my champion. I think she sees a lot in L.A. Unified graduates, and Latina to Latina, she really wants the others to do really well. I've always looked at her as a mentor. And then I sat down with Nick [Melvoin]. Nick loves it every single day.  

Speak UP: A lot of parents feel stuck on the sidelines when it comes to decision-making or having a voice or power within the district. Can you talk about your view of parents and where they fit in?

Tanya: I'm not a parent yet, but someday. It's fun seeing my friends be parents of little ones and decide what school they want to go to. My best friend put her son in the elementary school we went to. She was nervous at first, and I encouraged her to go observe instruction because people don't always tell you that you can go watch in the classroom. It's having those personal connections with parents.   

[Professionally], the biggest role I've had in parent voice is around the LCAP [Local Control Accountability Plan] process. When LCFF [Local Control Funding Formula] passed, I was excited because it felt to me like a restorative way of doing things. Decisions are made with those who are most impacted, not to them or for them. You can imagine that in school discipline and how consequences are determined, but it's also in budgeting.

I was really excited to do LCAP input sessions through our Parent College with our families. It was hard. We tried to do it a little differently from the district, to model more inclusive and deeper conversations. We tried to share with our families school data. What kinds of decisions should we make, given the resources and what you know about your community?  

There's something about trying on something different and then asking for feedback. What makes you feel heard and valued? Ultimately, whether it's a survey or a conversation, what makes me feel heard is that I see the difference in my school. That you took my advice, and I'm seeing the real change of it.  

Speak UP: There was a recent board battle over releasing student growth data and data looking at enrollment to examine inequities in magnet access and to decrease school segregation. What is your view of the role of data and sharing information?

Tanya: It starts from my classroom experiences. I did a lot of formative assessments where my kids have these very personalized notebooks, and every couple of days, they would track their progress. It would say, are you mastering this standard? Are you ready to move on to the next one? Do you need to try this one again? Trying again is growth oriented. If you believe that kids should know where they are and know where they need to go and how far they are away from their goal, then you should believe that classrooms should know, that schools should know and families should know.  

At Partnership schools, we have always looked at growth data. It's particularly important because proficiency has traditionally been low. And it's motivating to say we're making growth, even though we're still not there yet. But it's also really important to say, who is growing more and how do we learn from them? And we do that classroom-to-classroom, teacher-to-teacher because it's important for all of the kids in our schools.  

You can think about that working in a Local District and an entire district. Who's doing good things we should learn from? Not as a punishment or shaming, but how do we help all of our schools get to the goal? And do we even know how far away from the goal we are? Not just proficiency, but growth goals.  

So, yes, I was frustrated when there was a second resolution brought up to get rid of sharing the data, and the same thing for the magnet data. I don't think we should ever be afraid of data because it tells us something about what we're doing well and where we still need to grow. And the magnet thing is crazy, in particular, because I was a kid in a magnet school, and I remember people saying I'm half Mexican, half white. They were like, “Put white, and you'll get into the magnet. Don't put Mexican.” And those are not messages you want to share. So let's really look at the data and figure out how to do these things better. 

Speak UP: When it comes to the budget, a lot of parents feel there’s a lack of transparency about where the money is going. And the state recently had an audit of LCFF Funds saying that the money intended for high-needs students was not going to them. Can you talk about that and some of the financial challenges facing the district. How would you approach those challenges?  

Tanya: The budget is the reflection of our values, and we have to be constantly adjusting it, making sure it reflects a deep belief that all of our kids should be college- and career-ready.  When the Student Equity Needs Index first passed in 2014 [to create a formula to determine high-needs schools that would receive more funding], I was like, yes, I'm so excited for this. That was led by community groups and looked at academic scores, community factors like asthma rates and violence in the neighborhood -- all the things that impact learning.  

But at the Partnership, we were digging into the first version, and our really high-needs schools were not getting more resources through the SENI. The first step was getting the rankings right. I think we're there now. That was because of community. That wasn't the district in a room by themselves. That was the SENI working groups and advocacy groups and families and educators saying, “Let's do this right.” That was a yearlong process. We're in a better place with a formula, but we're still not putting enough dollars through it.

My hope is when the ballot measure in November is passed, about additional funding for schools, maybe another $1 billion is generated that also goes through the Student Equity Needs Index. We have to be getting more resources to the schools that need more resources. We have to try to be more equitable, and then we have to keep working on adequacy from the state. Adequacy for our special ed dollars, too. If we want to do right by our students with IEPs [Individualized Education Programs], the federal government also has to do their fair share.

Speak UP: Aside from more funding, how can we increase achievement for students with special needs?  

Tanya: The district is piloting it this year, but lots of charter schools, in particular, have done inclusion models for students with mild to moderate disabilities because we know kids do better in a general education setting. That's step one, but we have to do it right and slowly, and teachers need learning time.  

Speak UP: Right now we have a teacher shortage, especially in special ed. How can we increase the number and improve the quality of teachers coming into the profession?   

Tanya: I've been exploring teacher residencies. The concept being that [student teachers] are in a classroom for a year and earn a stipend, maybe like $20,000 to $25,000 that you pay someone so that they can afford to live. Plus they're getting tuition and learning. Over time, the cost actually works out because you're not recruiting to fill vacancies for the burnout that happens with new teachers who are not really supported. It makes a lot of sense for a residency model to be in schools that have high turnover and for special education, math, science, the areas where there is a shortage. You could think about the first few years like an apprentice model, like doctors or other professions.  

There's also some hiring challenges. How do we have the flexibilities at high-need schools to not have to choose off of the list? Having real choice and then the mutual consent of everyone, both the teacher and the team that helps to hire the teacher, not just the principal, but also colleagues, hopefully there are parents on that hiring team, and at the secondary level, even students on that hiring team.  

Speak UP: These are flexibilities most charter schools have: flexibility over hiring, curriculum and teacher pay. Should those flexibilities be extended to all schools? Obviously, one board member would not have the power to make those changes, but philosophically, do you wish that all schools had similar flexibilities? 

Tanya: Yes, and I think the reason that probably hasn't happened yet is the training and support and the trust of the decision-making at school sites. In my experience at the Partnership, we invest deeply in our principals. We build up their leadership, and we trust them. They also have a 1:4 or 1:5 ratio with their director, and at L.A. Unified, it's like 1:20 or 1:30. So they get a lot more coaching. I don't know if every neighborhood needs that. But if you have someone who can actually coach a school leader more regularly, you can trust them to have more flexibility, and you can also hold them accountable with an expert supporting along the way.   

Speak UP: What else do you think we can do to lift achievement at underperforming schools and close achievement gaps?

Tanya: One of the things we've been looking at the Partnership is the curriculum in front of kids. There was a report recently from TNTP called the Opportunity Myth. It's so simple, but kids will do what you put in front of them. And if we put low-level tasks in front of them, that's what they're going to perform.  

Speak UP: How do you stand out from the other candidates in this race? 

Tanya: I went to L.A. Unified Schools and taught in L.A. Unified Schools. I’m from the community and for the community, always. Having been a classroom teacher and working with L.A. Unified Schools my entire career, there won't be a big learning curve. What's different about me is a deep spirit of equity. We have to do better by our highest-needs schools. That's reflective of who I am and where I grew up. I'm bi-racial. I went away to college but came back and stayed. I'm not from San Pedro, where most of the candidates either are from or moved to. I think the district needs to be represented more broadly and not just where the base has been. People who know me know how energetic I am and how passionate I am. I will work harder than anybody else. I will not just stay up later, and it's not just because I don't have kids or because I'm young, but this is my life, and I will spend as many hours and all of my heart and energy because that's what it's going to take. It's not a part-time job. It's not a retirement gig. This is my life's work, and it will continue to be. I hope that that comes through, and I hope people can see that I am L.A. Unified through and through, but also for the progress of L.A. Unified. 

Speak UP: Were you surprised that UTLA endorsed a candidate that has no teaching or education experience?

Tanya: Yes, I was confused. I was disappointed. I went through their endorsement process so that I could meet people. I knew with Teach for America, with the Partnership, there's a label already. But I wanted to meet people, and the majority of people I work with are UTLA members. I myself was a UTLA member. I believe deeply in teachers and their leadership. I never expected to get the endorsement, just given the politics of things. But I was floored that the teacher's union recruited a non-teacher candidate. It was hard to swallow. 

Speak UP: I wonder how the teachers in District 7 feel about that? 

Tanya: Honestly, the few I've talked to are sort of separating themselves from union leadership, even though there was so much unity just a couple of months ago. One teacher I know has been inspired to run for union leadership, which I think is great. You want to have people lead from within. I went through their process, where they said on Sept. 18, our House of Representatives will decide. I had a few friends who were in the House of Representatives, and there was no decision making. There was: Here's the motion, here's who we've decided, and then on the next day, mailers were already sent out.

Speak UP: Do you have one big moonshot idea for changing things?  

Tanya:  Every student should able to go to a college campus. Spend the night when you're in secondary school, experience what it's like to be on a college campus outside of California. That’s a fun thing that opens the world of possibility and isn’t polarizing. It also requires a lot of resources. You could imagine philanthropy getting behind that idea. Because our kids can only dream as far as what they feel and see.

Speak UP: One of the most polarizing issues in education has been in charter schools. What’s your view of them? 

Tanya: I think [there’s] about 30 in District 7. I've been starting to learn and meet people because most of my experience has been in traditional schools. At the Partnership, we have some charter-like flexibilities and so I've been able to understand the governance. I've met a lot of great teachers at KIPP, Alliance, Aspire. But I'm still learning. Honestly, when people ask me that question: Are you for charters or are you for the teacher's union? It makes me think, oh, you want to put me in a box. And you are going to make a lot of judgments about me. What I want to say is, I'm for kids and progress and opportunity, and I think there are lots of ways to get there. I believe deeply in teachers and their power and their importance. But I also believe deeply in change and equity and progress.  

Speak UP: If elected, do you believe it would be your job to represent the interests of all of the parents and kids in your district, regardless of the school they attended, whether it’s an LAUSD school or an LAUSD-authorized school? 

Tanya: Yes, absolutely. That's really important for any district leader. About 20% of kids are in charter schools. No matter what school model, you have to be thinking about all of your kids and all of our families. And ideally learning from each other. Michelle King had those promising practices forums. She was really hoping to bridge some divides, build some learning. And if we want our kids to be college- and career-ready, that includes crossing lines of difference to collaborate, to solve problems and to learn and make our future better. I'm not going to be the person who says I'm going to bring everyone together in a circle and kumbaya. But there's real importance to who is in this seat. What does progress look like for all of our kids? And how do I do that in a way that is respectful and thoughtful and doesn't continue to push and divide or demonize. That's not what we want to model that for our kids.  

Speak UP: If there is a situation where the needs of the adult employees and the needs of the kids don’t align, where is your allegiance?

Tanya: That’s easy, I'm on the side of the kids. In a lot of situations, when adults are well, kids are well. When you're in the airplane, they say put on your mask first. You can only do for others if you yourself are OK. If the budget is as challenged as many people understand it to be, hard decisions will need to be made. Massive decisions, closing schools, lifetime benefits, selling buildings or renting real estate. These all have to be on the table. If you have a school of 200 kids and one principal, one building and grounds, and you have another school right across the street, the exact same, you have to really think about resources, and that's hard. It might not benefit all of the adults who are clamoring for their piece of the pie. At the same time, I respect labor, and I think you can get to some of those harder decisions collaboratively versus adversarially. I'm for putting all those things on the table and having really hard conversations. They need to be had.

Speak UP: Do you think any big gains were made during the strike?

Tanya: I appreciated the public energy. Because of all the folks in the streets and the signs and the windows, a lot of people cared about public education. Measure EE, though, caused me to pause and really reflect. I wonder about the difference between what I thought was real public support and what happened with Measure EE. The new ballot measure will really indicate whether there is genuine public support that was generated by the strike. People want support services,  nurses, counselors. There's 20 nursing vacancies in every local district. We have another position called a health aide, which is less expensive, and you get a quicker credential. Maybe we need health aides, but that's a different bargaining unit. You have to think: What do kids in schools need, not what does the union power need?