اینترنت

برچسب: LAUSD

  • LAUSD unanimously affirms support for immigrant and LGBTQ+ students leading up to Trump’s inauguration 

    LAUSD unanimously affirms support for immigrant and LGBTQ+ students leading up to Trump’s inauguration 


    Credit: Julie Leopo/EdSource

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    As anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ+ policies and rhetoric spread across the nation in the wake of Donald Trump’s re-election for presendent, the Los Angeles Unified School District board affirmed its commitment to members of these communities by unanimously passing four resolutions on Tuesday.

    “The district will continue to do everything in its power to protect and defend the kids in our care,” one of the resolutions reads. “Doing so is the responsibility of all LAUSD employees.” 

    Here’s an overview of LAUSD’s efforts from Tuesday’s regular board meeting and what to expect in the two months leading up to Trump’s inauguration. 

    LAUSD as a sanctuary district 

    After Trump vowed to declare a national emergency and bring in the U.S. military to facilitate mass deportations, the district passed a resolution reaffirming that it will remain a sanctuary and safe zone for families. 

    “We survived the pandemic because we stood together,” said Mónica García, who authored the original sanctuary resolution in the 2016-17 academic year and previously served as the president of LAUSD’s board. “… It is so important that, as we may see policies that we do not support … that we stand together in response to the times.”

    Tuesday’s action comes about eight years after the original sanctuary resolution passed; it also requires district Superintendent Alberto Carvalho to present a plan to the board within 60 days, in time for implementation by Jan. 20, when Trump returns to the White House. 

    The resolution says Carvalho’s plan should involve training LAUSD educators, administrators and staff on responding to federal agencies and anybody else who seeks information or attempts to enter a campus. 

    Meanwhile, the resolution insists that LAUSD will “aggressively oppose” any laws forcing school districts to work with federal agencies and personnel involved with immigration enforcement. 

    “The good news is that we have seen it before, and we are in a position to act,” García said at Tuesday’s meeting. “The challenge … [is] there are families who are separated and who are traumatized because of the fear of what is to come. And we will continue to ask them to come to school and give us their very best.” 

    She added, “Whether it is two years or it is four years, it is every day that we exercise love and the power of this institution on behalf of children and families.”  

    A safe place for LGBTQ+ and immigrant communities 

    The second resolution would require LAUSD to add gender identity and expression to the list of groups covered by its “To Enforce the Respectful Treatment of All Persons” policy and require the district to update district policy bulletins as needed.  

    It also calls on the district to support legislation backing immigrant and LGBTQ+ communities — and to provide educational and mental health resources. 

    A response to Project 2025 

    A third resolution passed Tuesday promises that LAUSD will remain “inclusive, safe, and welcoming” for all communities in the face of any “immediate, incalculable, and irreparable harm” to public schools caused by Project 2025, a set of detailed policy proposals authored long before the election by hundreds of high-profile conservatives in the hope that Trump would push them if elected.

    It states that LAUSD will defend all students’ right to a public education and protect them from potential harm. 

    Carvalho will have to report back to the board within 60 days — and present an overview of the potential impacts of Project 2025 as well as a district response, the resolution states.  

    “This resolution is a bold and necessary shield against the looming threats to public education — a public good that we must protect fiercely and defend,” board member Rocío Rivas said Tuesday. 

    A new political education course 

    The fourth resolution emphasizes the importance of turning LAUSD students into critical thinkers capable of discerning facts from falsehoods and ready to participate in the American political system.

    “We’re not talking about [being] a Democrat or a Republican,” said board President Jackie Goldberg, who authored all four resolutions, during her last full board meeting Tuesday. “It’s about understanding the actual way the government works — as opposed to what the Constitution says. And there’s a big difference.”

    The resolution asks Carvalho to look into creating a high-level political education course and report back to the board in 160 days. 

    His considerations, according to the resolution, would include whether the course would serve as a requirement, areas that the curriculum would cover, the types of professional development that would be needed and the ideal grade levels to teach it. 

    The resolution also asks Carvalho to consider any other curricular changes in the grade levels leading up to the course to make sure students are prepared. 

    Anely Cortez Lopez, student board member, said at Tuesday’s meeting, “The understanding of the political landscape of the United States is vital in our schools as we continue as the change-makers of tomorrow.”





    Source link

  • Judge rejects lawsuit over ‘liberated’ ethnic studies classes in LAUSD

    Judge rejects lawsuit over ‘liberated’ ethnic studies classes in LAUSD


    Theresa Montaño, a professor in Chicano/a Studies at CSU Northridge and a member of the LAUSD-UTLA Ethnic Studies Committee, is a defendant in the lawsuit.

    Credit: Luis Garcia / California State University, Northridge

    A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit against the United Teachers Los Angeles and the organization that created a controversial ethnic studies curriculum adopted by at least two dozen school districts in California. 

    U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin’s scathing ruling on Nov. 30 criticized what he concluded was a lack of evidence and unpersuasive arguments made on behalf of the two Jewish teachers and parents in Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles, the group that brought the litigation.

    The plaintiffs’ complaint “is difficult to understand and contains a morass of largely irrelevant — and sometimes contradictory — allegations, few of which state with any degree of clarity precisely what plaintiffs believe defendants have done or, more importantly, how plaintiffs have been harmed,” wrote Olguin of the Central District of federal court in California. His 49-page pretrial ruling dismissing the lawsuit “with prejudice” precludes the plaintiffs from refiling another similar lawsuit in federal court.  The lawsuit was filed in 2022.

    The lawsuit alleged that the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, the teachers union, its president Cecily Myart-Cruz, and two members of the LAUSD-UTLA Ethnic Studies Committee encouraged the adoption of instructional materials used in several LAUSD classrooms, that they also “covertly” trained teachers in the “liberated” ethnic studies curriculum, which condemns capitalism, white privilege, and Zionism, and characterizes Israel’s existence as “based on ethnic cleansing and land theft, apartheid and genocide,”  according to Olguin’s summary of the lawsuit.

    The lawsuit also alleged that teachers who identified as Jewish or Zionist were not welcome in classrooms where ethnic studies was taught and “personally experienced the official hostility” of UTLA to Israel and to the concept of Zionism.”

    Denying they are antisemitic, educators affiliated with the consortium — mainly instructors and professors in ethnic studies departments at California State University and University of California — have made anti-Zionism and opposition to Israel a focus of their curriculum. They characterize Israel as a settler, colonialist nation, similar to European nations’ oppressive occupations of Africa and Asia in the 19th and 2oth centuries.

    The “liberated” approach to ethnic studies has drawn scrutiny since its leaders formed the consortium in protest after the State Board of Education rejected as ideological and one-sided a draft curriculum that some of them had authored. In passing Assembly Bill 101, creating a mandate requiring high school students to take ethnic studies to graduate, the Legislature, at the encouragement of the Legislative Jewish Caucus, specified that school districts should not use unadopted portions of earlier drafts of the model curriculum. 

    Advocates of liberated ethnic studies charged the clause and other “guardrails” in the law were intended to squelch their free speech. The largely unfunded graduation mandate is set to take effect in 2029-30.

    In an online celebration Monday, Theresa Montaño, a defendant in the lawsuit who is also a member of the LAUSD-UTLA Ethnic Studies Committee and secretary of the consortium, said, “The end of this two-and-a-half year lawsuit means vindication, affirmation, and victory.”

    “This is a win for liberatory critical ethnic studies and academic freedom. It’s a testament to the power of solidarity and liberation, whether that be in South Los Angeles or in Gaza,” said Montaño, a professor of Chicano/a Studies at CSU Northridge. “And so it’s a signal to us that we will not stop, that we will persist until authentic ethnic studies is guaranteed to every student in this state.”

    The attorney representing the defendants, Mark Kleiman, told teachers on the press call, “The moral of this story for people in the other school districts is, you don’t have to be afraid of these kinds of attacks. Given half a chance in a fair courtroom, you will be vindicated.” 

    Meanwhile, the legal director for the Deborah Project — the law firm that filed the lawsuit — said, “We absolutely will be appealing the decision and are confident that the decision will be reversed on appeal.” The appeal must be filed by Dec. 30.

    The ruling, said Lori Lowenthal Marcus, “is deeply flawed, as it ignores crucial allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint, fails to address arguments plaintiffs made in their briefs, and even ignores binding precedent from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.”  

    “We are in the midst of soaring antisemitism in education throughout the U.S., and this is no time for anyone — much less a federal court — to allow publicly funded public schools to be used to indoctrinate children to hate the Jewish commitment to Israel,” she said. “Contrary to the ruling, that’s not ‘education’ about a ‘controversial’ issue. It’s prejudice, pure and simple.”

    Uncertain implications

    It’s unclear what impact, if any, the ruling might have on other litigation in California involving ethnic studies and allegations of antisemitism and indoctrination which include a potentially stronger lawsuit that the Deborah Project filed last month against the Sequoia Union High School District in Menlo Park, its superintendent, and administrators at two high schools. The plaintiffs in this case are the parents of Jewish students who claim that the district ignored parents’ repeated complaints of antisemitic taunts and bullying by students and biased lessons on the Israeli-Gaza conflict, taught by two history teachers.

    On Friday, an Orange County Superior Court judge will consider a motion to invalidate four ethnic studies courses in Santa Ana Unified. In their lawsuit, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law claims that district staff wrote the courses, with the participation of school board members, in violation of the California open meetings law. They did so in order to hide the content from Jewish community members who had repeatedly offered to participate in the process and offer their perspectives. Documents reveal that staff members referred to the Jewish Federation of Orange County as “racist Zionists” and made other bigoted remarks about Jews. 

    The lawsuit against UTLA and the consortium did not include LAUSD as a direct defendant, which may have weakened the case because the district has not adopted the Liberated Ethnic Studies curriculum, and there is no indication if and when it would. That made the plaintiffs’ concerns speculative and, therefore, their proposed remedies invalid, Olguin wrote, noting that the participation of Montaño and Guadalupe Carrasco Cardona, an LAUSD teacher and a member of the consortium’s leadership team, in an advisory committee is not evidence of the district’s endorsement of the curriculum.

    Olguin further ruled that the plaintiffs could not substantiate that teachers and other plaintiffs had yet faced any actual harm, nor did they demonstrate that the eventual adoption of the curriculum would violate civil rights. The judge continued that although plaintiffs claimed the curriculum was “infected from top to bottom with racism,” they didn’t show any evidence to support their assertion.

    “It is far from clear that learning about Israel and Palestine or encountering teaching materials with which one disagrees constitutes an injury,” Olguin wrote.

    The plaintiffs had asked Olguin to issue injunctions prohibiting LAUSD from including language critical of Israel or Zionism in teaching materials; preventing the district from paying teachers who used the liberated curriculum; and prohibiting the district from using materials from liberated curriculum in classrooms and teacher training paid for by public funds.

    Olguin ruled that the plaintiffs had not substantiated claims that their First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom and their right to equal protection under the U.S. and California constitutions were impeded. However, their request for an injunction would have raised an unconstitutional prior restraint on the defendants’ First Amendment speech rights, he concluded.

    While a district can “reasonably” curtail teachers’ speech rights in a classroom, “those limitations are fundamentally different from speech restrictions imposed by a court at the behest of a group of private citizens,” he wrote.

    In language certain to alarm Jewish organizations worried that antisemitic and anti-Israel bias is gaining a foothold in California schools, Olguin wrote, “It would be of great concern for the educational project and for academic freedom if every offended party could sue every time they did not like a curriculum or the way it was taught.”





    Source link

  • LAUSD settles lawsuit over federal money it unlawfully denied to Archdiocese schools

    LAUSD settles lawsuit over federal money it unlawfully denied to Archdiocese schools


    Isabel Dueñas teaches her transitional kindergarten students how to read at San Miguel Catholic School in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles.

    Credit: Archdiocese of Los Angeles

    The article was updated to include a statement that LAUSD Supt. Alberto Carvalho issued on Dec.23.

    Los Angeles Unified has settled a 3-year-old lawsuit with the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles over how much federal Title I funding low-income students within the archdiocese are entitled to receive. The district agreed to pay the $3 million it improperly withheld from archdiocese schools and to comply with federal regulations requiring transparency and consultation with the archdiocese it had repeatedly violated.

    The agreement covered 2018-19 and 2019-20, when Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD) first changed the method of determining student eligibility for Title I and cut funding by more than 90%, from $9.5 million for the eligible 13,000 students in the archdiocese to $757,000.

    The LAUSD school trustees signed off on the agreement in a closed session Dec. 11 and did not publicly disclose details after announcing the vote. A district spokesperson declined comment before publication of the article. 

    But Paul Escala, superintendent of the Los Angeles Archdiocese schools, said the agreement sends a clear message. It “ensures that non-public school students who are eligible for these services will get them. While that may seem basic, when we’ve operated in an environment where that was not clear and was not being upheld, that is a win for kids,” he said.

    “This recognizes that kids who attend Catholic schools in urban Los Angeles, not only are they eligible for Title I services, but in fact suffer with poverty and needs just like their public school district peers,” he said.

    Since its passage in 1968, Congress extended Title I funding to poor students in private schools, including religious schools, to boost their chances for success. However, to avoid directly funding religious schools, Congress decided that districts in which private and religious schools are located should determine student eligibility and consult with the schools on which services, such as counseling, the students should receive.

    Districts have a menu of methods for determining Title I eligibility. The simplest and generally most advantageous for private schools is to use census data to determine the level of poverty in a neighborhood and calculate eligibility as the proportion of low-income students that attend a private school. It’s the method most large urban districts have used, Escala said, including LAUSD and Miami-Dade County Public Schools, where Alberto Carvalho was superintendent before becoming LAUSD superintendent in 2022. That approach also meets the spirit of Title I, he said.

    An incentive to deny Title I to private school kids

    Under Superintendent Austin Beutner’s incoming administration, the district changed the eligibility process for 2018-19 without prior notice to require schools to document family incomes through surveys or the number of income-eligible students registered for the federal subsidized meals programs. Along with requiring more time, paperwork and verification by the schools, the district changed the reporting rules several times in a short period and failed to engage the archdiocese about its decisions meaningfully, the California Department of Education wrote in 2021 in response to a formal complaint by the archdiocese. In addition to slashing funding, the district cut the schools served to fewer than two dozen out of 116 schools in the archdiocese. According to the California Department of Education, the district cut its total share allocated to private schools from 2% and 2.6% of $291 million to 0.5%.

    Districts have a financial incentive to minimize private schools’ Title I eligibility, since the federal government awards Title I funding to districts. After subtracting the amount going to private schools, a district gets to keep unallocated dollars for its own Title I students.

    “There’s a moral and ethical question on the table,” Escala said at the time. 

    In its 58-page report, the California Department of Education called the funding cuts “totally unreasonable.” Its report concluded that LAUSD “engaged in a pattern of arbitrary unilateral decisions,” including giving archdiocese schools 12 days during a summer break to produce income surveys for families and then removing all the schools that were unable to meet the deadline. It characterized the district’s approach as a “hide-the-ball approach (that) breached both the spirit and the letter” of the law.

    LAUSD appealed the ruling to the U.S. Department of Education, which largely affirmed the California department’s findings in a November 2023 ruling. It gave the district 60 days to consult with the district, as the Title I law required, and fix the inaccurate count of ineligible students. It gave the district 90 days to provide the services that it had denied.   

    The archdiocese returned to Los Angeles Superior Court in the spring of 2024 because, Escala said, the district dragged its feet and declined to hand over documents the archdiocese was entitled to.

    The turning point in the case came on July 16, 2024, when L.A. County Superior Court Judge Curtis Kim ordered the district to turn over all relevant documents, emails and records by Aug. 20 and to pay $82,141 to the diocese in attorneys’ fees.

    The documents confirmed what the archdiocese had assumed, said the archdiocese’s chief academic officer, Robert Tagorda. “For years they had insisted that they were following the law. We had suspicions that if you’re cutting us this much, it can’t be lawful. We had the documents to show we had far more low-income students than they had originally counted.”

    With revelations of public records, the archdiocese reached out to LAUSD to resume settlement talks. Within several weeks in November, there was a deal. The terms correspond to what the U.S. Department of Education had recommended, Tagorda said. LAUSD would recalculate how much was owed in 2018-19 and apply the corrections to 2019-20. It would disclose how the Title I obligation was calculated and confer with the archdiocese on the services to be provided. The archdiocese also will be able to pool Title I money so that it can direct it to the most intensive-needs schools — a practice that LAUSD had prohibited.

    The combined $3 million owed for the two years was far below what had been received the year before the district changed the eligibility method. But staff turnover in the district and the archdiocese, and incomplete records in some schools, undermined the claims, Tagorda acknowledged. The eligibility process in years since 2019-20, unaffected by the lawsuit, changed little. In 2023-24, the archdiocese received $2 million in Title I funding.

    Title I rules allow districts to annually change the process of determining eligibility. Escala said the archdiocese will continue to request that LAUSD return to the proportionality method that produced more funding; LAUSD, by law, must give the rationale each year for denying it.

    Escala acknowledged that the archdiocese could have chosen to litigate the case — and likely won. But the outcome would have potentially taken years and legal expenses that archdiocese schools don’t have. “We recognized that we could not afford another day, another year, another generation of students not having the ability to fairly access legally entitled services,” he said.

    Tagorda said the additional money from the settlement would be used for tutoring, after-school and summer programs, and academic counseling that schools have been requesting.

    In an interview with EdSource in March 2022, soon after becoming LAUSD superintendent, Carvalho said he had familiarized himself with the archdiocese lawsuit. “I’m going to resolve this issue sooner rather than later,” he said. “What I can tell you is that we need more objective, transparent tools by which we assess and fund this guaranteed federal entitlement that’s driven by poverty,” regardless of whether for a public or private school.

    It took nearly three years since then, after exhausting appeals and losing one ruling in Superior Court, for the district to resolve the case. Escala said he is optimistic it will be enforced.

    “When we came back to the table, it was clear that Carvalho took a personal interest to make sure we have the conditions on his side to get a settlement done. We have seen a change in approach by district staff. He is committed to abide by Title I regulations and consultation that is fair, I take him at this word,” said Escala.

    “In the course of these negotiations, trust and faith had to be rebuilt. I think that we’re in a far better place than we were six months ago.”

    On Dec. 23, a day after the article was published, Carvalho issued the following statement: “I am grateful for our partnership with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. I look forward to the ways we can work together in the future and serve the students of Los Angeles. Thanks to Superintendent Paul Escala for his steadfast leadership over the Department of Catholic Schools.”





    Source link

  • How a new LAUSD board member hopes to inspire change following Trump’s inauguration 

    How a new LAUSD board member hopes to inspire change following Trump’s inauguration 


    LAUSD school board member Karla Griego reading with students.

    Credit: Courtesy of Karla Griego

    A lot has changed in the life of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s new board member, representing District 5. 

    In the past few months, Karla Griego was elected to LAUSD’s school board, was sworn in and now is having to find her stride as a new presidential administration takes charge on Monday. 

    While many of her priorities remain unchanged — including providing more support for community schools, investing in special education and charter school accountability — Griego said she’s rethinking some of her priorities because of another four years of President Donald Trump. 

    Despite the potential hurdles ahead, Griego, an educator of more than 19 years and backed by the district’s teacher’s union, emphasized that she is grateful to work with LAUSD’s community as part of a larger movement.  

    “Change doesn’t happen with individuals, change happens with movements,” Griego, the first Latina to serve her board district in more than 30 years, said in an interview with EdSource. 

    “And if that’s what we want in our schools — we want schools to be student centered and holistic educational experiences and schools that are healthy, green, racially just, affirming, community schools — then it’s a movement that’s going to make that happen.” 

    Here’s what she said she hopes to accomplish in her tenure on the board. 

    This interview has been edited for length and clarity.  

    What are the most critical issues that you most want to address during your term on the Los Angeles Unified board?  

    The immigration issue is very big here in L.A. because there’s a lot of anxiety among our families, our communities, our students, and so that is definitely one thing that was not on my campaign platform, but it has now risen as a priority. And with that, I’m hoping that we could lead in having “Know Your Rights” sessions for families and parents and students, and provide social-emotional support. It was the student board member who highlighted the need for social-emotional support for students who will be dealing with a lot if their families are in fear of deportation. We saw in 2017 how children were affected by that. I am hoping that we can, as a district, lead in spearheading some of these workshops and support systems for our students and their families. 

    And then, of course, the budget is always very important. Every year, we need to make decisions. I want to make sure that I involve stakeholders, and I want to host meetings throughout my district to hear from families and parents and teachers, classified staff, administrators about what their priorities are. I want to hear from the community. I made that commitment when I was running, and so one of the first tasks is going to be to host listening sessions throughout the district. 

    And of course to expand community schools to allow them to grow and thrive as they’re meant to, and to make sure that we keep our promise to our Black students by maintaining the Black Student Achievement Plan. 

    And, just overall, that as we are making decisions, I bring that voice to the table of seeing the decisions that we make through the lens of supporting our students and supporting our students holistically— so let that be the driving force for all of our decision-making.

    You’ve already discussed supporting families who fear deportation. But beyond immigration, how has the outcome of the November election impacted your priorities, if at all?  

    I’m a special education teacher, and with the federal government threatening to disband the Department of Education, special education could be dispersed to another department, and so it won’t have as high a priority. I definitely want to make sure that we continue to center one of our most vulnerable (groups of) students in spite of all the hits that we get (and make) decisions about what’s best for them to be able to access the curriculum and schooling and to be in a safe environment that is equitable and meets their needs. 

    Special education is an area of concern for me in terms of the new presidency, but it just means that we need to work harder, and we need to bring together special ed parents, special ed students and teachers and administrators to organize and push back on any cuts to what’s already a very small budget. And even though they’re threatening to cut even more, we continue to ask for more. 

    There are so many stakeholders who sometimes have conflicting views on critical issues, ranging from policing to charter schools. How do you plan to balance all of that feedback and decide what to act on? 

    When I was a community school coordinator, I learned to do different types of assessments and surveys, but also to have focus groups and to determine to come to a consensus as to what the priorities will be. And so that’s what I’m hoping to do. 

    Few parents say we want police and, likewise, we don’t want police. The first thing that comes out generally, in my experience with talking to families throughout the campaign and even now, is we want safe schools. And so, what are you going to do to create safe schools? And that’s what they want to hear from the district. I’ve always told stakeholders that I know that there is funding in community-based safety programs. I know that there is funding for restorative practices and de-escalation techniques, and so I want to make sure that we spend that money to support our staff and support our students and to implement Safe Passages in our neighborhoods, especially those where families feel that their kids are not safe going to and from school. I want to make sure that we use that funding for those things as they were meant to be used. 

    In terms of charters, it’s accountability. That’s huge with charter schools — making sure that they are held accountable in the same way that public schools are held accountable. If they say that they accept special ed students and English language learners, then I want to see that is the case, that that is happening, that children, that families are welcomed, and families are engaged. 

    How do you plan to engage student voices?  

    The student voice is super important, and the way that I want to make sure that I engage them is by meeting with different student organizations that already exist in LAUSD. And, in particular, we have a lot of groups of students who are affinity groups: the LGBTQ, trans groups, Latino groups or Black student unions. 

    I also want to make sure that when I visit school sites, that I also engage with students at the school sites and, at these listening sessions that I’m hoping to have, there’s going to be a concerted effort to make sure that students also attend and (that I) get ideas from them. 

    What message would you like to send to LAUSD’s student body?

    Our students go through so much. All students experience so much stress either just by the mere fact that they are in the developmental stage that they’re in, or social factors. And so, what I want to tell them is to try to find joy in the things that you like and enjoy yourself as much (as you can), because you deserve it. And, yeah, it’s hard. I have an 18-year-old daughter, so I try to stress that to her, to just try to find joy. 

    There’s so much stress on our students about performance. Even if we don’t tell them, they feel it. They feel the stress of testing, performing graduation, doing better. It’s just the messages that we send to our kids sometimes are always about doing better, and how does that make us feel? That we’re never enough, that we’re just not quite there. And, I don’t want our students to feel that way. They are where they are, and they are strong and resilient. 

    And also, to lean on the support system that they may have: a sibling, cousin, a friend, an educator, a parent. Whatever that support system may be, lean on that because when you’re in community, you also feel a lot stronger.





    Source link

  • Lawsuit charges misuse of arts education funding at LAUSD schools

    Lawsuit charges misuse of arts education funding at LAUSD schools


    EdSource file photo courtesy of Oakland School for the Arts

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    Vicky Martinez feels cheated that her children haven’t had much exposure to the arts at their Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD) schools despite state funding through Proposition 28, the state’s landmark arts education mandate. She believes access to the arts could help them cope with their anxiety and ADHD, conditions that have spiked post-pandemic. 

    “I had more arts than my kids do,” said Martinez, mother of three LAUSD students in the Highland Park area. “That’s not right. It makes me angry that our kids are being denied the arts when there’s been so much research about how it keeps kids engaged in school. We should be making progress, and instead we are lagging behind.” 

    Many parents share her outrage. The families of eight students, including Martinez’s three sons, 12, 15 and 17, and the author of the arts proposition have joined forces to file a lawsuit against Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation’s second-largest school district, and its superintendent, Alberto Carvalho. The lawsuit, filed Monday afternoon in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges misuse of funds as well as misleading the public in its rollout of Proposition 28 that sets aside roughly $1 billion a year statewide for arts education. 

    “LAUSD has willfully and knowingly violated the law,” said former LAUSD Superintendent Austin Beutner, who authored the proposition, “and as a consequence, is harming hundreds of thousands of students by depriving them of the arts education that they are entitled to under law.”

    The suit also claims that LAUSD’s mismanagement of Proposition 28 funds, particularly at low-income schools , has disproportionately impacted Black and Latino students, deepening inequity. The thrust of the law, says Beutner, is that all students, not just privileged ones, deserve access to the arts.

    “We have not received notice, nor have we been served with any lawsuit regarding Prop 28,” an LAUSD spokesperson said in a statement to EdSource. “That said, we have sought to clarify any misunderstandings regarding Prop 28, and we continue to follow implementation guidance as provided by the state of California to ensure that we are fully complying with the requirements of Prop 28.”

    The suit is the latest push for accountability on arts education funding. Beutner and a group of major unions, including UTLA, the local teachers union, SEIU Local 99 and Teamsters 572, wrote a letter to education officials last year demanding the state hold districts responsible for their spending. LAUSD was allotted roughly $77 million for arts education in the 2023-24 school year. 

    The unions are helping pay for the lawsuit, which comes at a time when the district is already facing mounting scrutiny over its handling of three large cyberattacks exposing sensitive student information and the appropriateness of its response to recent catastrophic fires.

    “LAUSD has done exactly what the law prohibits,” the suit argues; “it has eliminated existing funding sources for existing art teachers, and replaced those funds with Proposition 28 funds, thereby violating the requirement that the funds supplement rather than supplant existing sources.  Moreover, LAUSD has made no meaningful effort to recruit or hire new art teachers as required by the law.” 

    Given extensive research that arts education has key academic and social benefits, the law was designed to hire new arts teachers, and most schools are required to spend at least 80% of funds on staff. The plaintiffs allege that the district has been willfully misinterpreting the law and misleading families and teachers. 

    “Bottom line, there’s been rampant misuse of the funds,” Beutner said, “and the guidance and oversight has been insufficient.” 

    In an Aug. 15, 2024, memo to the board, Carvalho acknowledged spending new Proposition 28 money to pay for existing staff, which is not allowed. 

    “Given historic staffing challenges in filling Arts educator roles and because 80% of Prop 28 must be spent on labor, the District prioritized the use of Prop 28 funds to cover existing staff as well as hire new staff.” 

    The district argues that the law only requires an increase in arts funding for the district as a whole. 

    “The law requires that non-Prop. 28 arts expenditures at the district level are higher than previous years and does not factor in differences in spending at a school site level,” according to an LAUSD fact sheet.

    Beutner has long objected to this interpretation. The law requires that every school to increase its arts offerings, he maintains, so that all students have access.

    Cecily Myart-Cruz, the president of UTLA, the union representing about 35,000 LAUSD educators, claims the district has not been honest about its use of Prop 28 funds.

    “The superintendent pulling out a bulletin saying, ‘Oops, my bad,’ doesn’t work,” Myart-Cruz said. “If you have arts in school, you will change lives. … And so, I’m exasperated by the district’s lack of response and responsibility to providing arts educators for our babies and the communities in which we serve.”

    To be sure, similar issues have arisen across the state. Facing budget woes, some schools have used creative bookkeeping maneuvers to pay existing staff with the new funds, instead of actually adding arts teachers, experts warn. 

    “The temptation to redirect these funds can arise when schools face financial pressures in other areas,” said Allison Gamlen, visual and performing arts coordinator for the San Mateo County Office of Education. “This is a clear violation of the intent of the proposition and, unfortunately, not an isolated incident.”

    However, many other districts across the state, from Pacifica to Long Beach, have successfully used the proposition funds to build robust new arts ed programs, experts note.

    That disparity explains why many parents and teachers have been calling for greater transparency in how schools use the arts money, which landed in schools in February 2024. 

    “We want real support for the hiring of folks who can provide arts instruction, and I think that this is the righteous thing. This is the legal thing,” said Nicolle Fefferman, a veteran LAUSD teacher, who also co-founded the Parents Supporting Teachers advocacy group. “Who does this money serve sitting in a district bank account?”

    Families want a seat at the table. 

    “At many schools, there was no conversation about Prop. 28,” said Martinez. “Parents had no input.” 

    Make no mistake, the impact of any misspent funds on families can be severe. Martinez said that her 15-year-old son, going by the alias Julian in the suit, suffers from severe anxiety and feelings of despair, conditions she believes could be alleviated by the therapeutic influence of the arts. When her oldest son got his hands on a guitar, she says, he started to thrive. 

    “Arts improves learning, especially for low-income students,” said Martinez. “We are hurting them by not providing it.”

    Another plaintiff’s mother, going by the alias April T.,  says her son, going by Lucas, 9, only gets one hour a week of art class, the same as before Proposition 28. She says she pays for private music classes because none are available through LAUSD.

    Accountability is among the most critical issues facing the Proposition 28 rollout, according to a recent report by Arts for LA, a key arts advocacy organization. 

    “Teachers, parents and students should know whether, how, and when Prop 28 decisions are being made,” said Lindsey Kunisaki, who wrote the report. “They’ll be the ones to directly experience the impact of those Prop 28 decisions in practice, and moreover, they’re the experts in the realities of their own classrooms and communities.”

    Carvalho’s August memo also acknowledges that the district did not “consult with school communities specifically about Prop 28 Arts funding,” but will encourage principals to solicit feedback going forward.

    Many experts recommend an independent oversight committee of administrators, teachers, families and community partners to make sure that arts education funds are properly spent. Some may assume that county offices of education provide oversight, but that is not within their purview, experts say.

    Arts education advocates have long urged the California Department of Education (CDE), which is administering the new funding, to step up enforcement of the rules. Many have complained that the department has not provided enough guidance to schools already struggling with myriad post-pandemic issues.

    “The structure of the proposition did not include any provision to ensure adequate CDE staffing to address questions and the overall confusion that has been a common thread,” said Allison Cagley, executive director of Friends of Sacramento Arts, an advocacy group. “There was no one or two people at CDE that could adequately address the questions.”

    CDE officials could not be immediately reached for comment. 

    Amid the controversy, many parents are anxious to see Proposition 28 funds put to good use to spark engagement at a time of chronic absenteeism and widespread disaffection at schools. 

    “This is an investment in our kids,” Martinez said. “Our kids deserve this. We all agreed on this. The state of California voted for this. So why aren’t we doing it?”





    Source link

  • Students easily subvert LAUSD phone ban

    Students easily subvert LAUSD phone ban


    Credit: Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle via AP

    Let’s be honest: many of us don’t use our Yondr pouches. 

    In the age of social media and being chronically online, smartphones have become extensions of our bodies and Los Angeles Unified’s attempt to minimize classroom distractions through the Yondr phone ban has sparked considerable debate.

    While the intention behind locking away devices is commendable, the execution has been less than effective, calling into question the practicality of such measures. 

    We’ve all seen them, the gray and green pouches with magnetic locks. The Yondr pouches, designed to lock students’ phones during school hours, have faced significant challenges. Despite their widespread adoption, many students have found ways to bypass the system.

    Students have hacked the pouches, purchased their own magnets, banged them against tables, used fake phones or have simply avoided using them altogether. Not only does this undermine the policy’s effectiveness, but it also highlights a glaring oversight in anticipating student ingenuity. 

    LAUSD spent no small amount on this program, allocating around seven million dollars for equipment to enforce the policy, with about 80% of eligible middle and high schools opting for Yondr pouches. 

    Funds that could have gone to hiring new teachers, improving facilities or enhancing school meals were blown on pouches that many students don’t even use. 

    Of course, restricting device usage can lead to improved student engagement and academic performance. Studies have shown that banning mobile phones enhanced student performance among low-achieving students without negatively impacting high-achievers. Schools have also reported a decrease in cyberbullying incidents and more frequent face-to-face interactions among students. 

    While the benefits of reducing distractions is clear, the practicality of such bans remains questionable. 

    The effectiveness of the pouches relies heavily on constant administrative enforcement and student integrity. Overpowering cell phone addictions, student opposition to the phone ban and the inability of administrators to constantly breathe down our necks have diminished compliance with the policy. 

    Investing in education staff, infrastructure and student welfare programs might have yielded more tangible benefits than attempting to enforce a policy that students are adept at undermining. 

    Banning phones is not inherently flawed. In fact, it aims to foster a more focused and interactive learning environment. However, the district’s Yondr approach has been unrealistic and financially imprudent. 

    A more practical strategy, such as creating phone-free zones in classrooms and study areas while allowing usage during lunch or passing periods, would be a more feasible solution. Though no system is perfect, a more flexible structure can reduce the temptation to sneak phones out during class. 

    Technology is inescapable. Rather than waging an unwinnable war against phones, LAUSD should lead the way in creating a more balanced approach, one that truly prepares students for success in the real world.

    •••

    This commentary was originally published in the Mirror, Van Nuys High School’s student-run journalism publication.

    Abigail Kim is a 10th grader at Los Angeles Unified’s Van Nuys High School and is a staff writer for The Mirror’s opinion section.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us. 





    Source link

  • LAUSD denies entry to federal officials, affirms support for immigrants 

    LAUSD denies entry to federal officials, affirms support for immigrants 


    LAUSD Superintendent Albert Carvalho during a school board meeting on August 30, 2022.

    Credit: Julie Leopo/EdSource

    Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Alberto Carvalho confirmed Thursday morning that the district denied campus entry earlier this week to Department of Homeland Security officials seeking information about five students in first through sixth grades. 

    On Monday morning, federal officials arrived at two district elementary schools, Lillian Street Elementary and Russell Elementary in South Los Angeles, Carvalho said, adding that Monday’s interactions marked the first effort by federal authorities to enter Los Angeles public schools since the Trump administration announced efforts to boost immigration enforcement and speed up deportations.

    At a news conference Thursday morning, he said that the visit by the federal officials was “a sad day across Los Angeles — not just for our school system, but for our entire community.”

    “As a school system, we have a professional responsibility to protect, to educate, to inspire young people,” Carvalho added. “I also have, beyond my professional responsibility, a moral responsibility to protect these students.”

    The authorities were dressed casually and only presented identification when asked by the principals of the schools, Carvalho told reporters. He also claimed the officials quickly hid their credentials when the principals attempted to write down their information. 

    According to Carvalho, the agents said they wanted access “to the students to determine their well-being” because they had come to the United States as unaccompanied minors. 

    The agents said they were authorized by the students’ caretakers to go to the campuses, but the district has since confirmed the assertion to be false by speaking with the caretakers, Carvalho said.

    “Across the country, different agencies have been deputized and deployed to collaborate with ICE,” Carvalho said Thursday, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “So, if a federal agent presents themselves to our schools, regardless of agency, asking for direct access to our students, that is suspect behavior that we’re not going to tolerate.” 

    He also praised the schools’ administrators and staff for their response, saying they are trained to handle these situations, including demanding officials’ credentials and examining any warrants or subpoenas. 

    If proper documentation isn’t presented, Carvalho said the officials will be asked to leave, and LAUSD’s operations department, legal department and school board police department are notified. 

    “We will protect our kids. We will educate our kids. We will inspire our kids. We will not allow abuse, intimidation of our children or our workforce,” he said. “Schools are places for learning. Schools are places for understanding. Schools are places for instruction. Schools are not places of fear.” 

    LAUSD’s actions, Carvalho maintained, are in keeping with the law. And in November, Los Angeles Unified affirmed its commitment to being a sanctuary district. 

    Carvalho, a native of Portugal, said he arrived in the U.S. as a youth without authorization. “If I am to represent who I am and what I became in this country, I have to do it in a way that honors the humanity and dignity of those who are currently in the same exact condition decades after I was in that predicament,” Carvalho said. “So, I would put my job on the line in the protection of our students and our workforce.”





    Source link