Antonio Villaraigosa (left), Gavin Newsom, and John Chiang. (Getty Images)

While 2017 was undoubtedly a huge year for education in national politics and in Los Angeles, 2018 has the potential to bring big changes to education across California. A new governor, who will appoint a new state Board of Education, will have a significant impact on how education is funded and what students are learning.

Here are seven things to be looking for in 2018 and how they will shape education policy in the years ahead.

1. Who will be California’s next governor?

Education is shaping up to be a major issue in the 2018 gubernatorial race as it’s an area where the four top Democratic candidates differ. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is leading in early polls, has been endorsed by the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers and is seen as a candidate who supports the education establishment. Newsom said he believes one of the most pressing issues in education is the “crisis” of demoralized teachers. Former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has the ardent support in the school reform community, which believes he pushed for public charter schools and more accountability in the nation’s second-largest school district with little political upside and clear risks. As mayor, he attempted to take control of LA Unified and supported Vergara v. California, which challenged teacher tenure laws. On the campaign trail, he has said that the system of education in California is “broken.” State Treasurer John Chiang’s views on education are less known, but he didn’t support the Vergara lawsuit. Delaine Eastin, a former state superintendent of public instruction, has called for a moratorium on charter school growth. She also said the state needs to address the demoralized teaching profession.

All four candidates said they supported Gov. Jerry Brown’s major education policy that reformed how the state funds education, called the Local Control Funding Formula, which gives more money to districts with high numbers of English learners, low-income students, and students in the foster care system.

The primary election is June 5, and the two top vote-getters will advance to the general election on Nov. 6.

The governor also wields significant power each year when it comes to education funding. School districts are largely funded by the state through a per-pupil allocation that is based on daily attendance. The governor, with the approval of the Legislature, determines the per-pupil allocation as he is developing the budget each year. The LA Unified school board, along with labor unions and the wider education community in Los Angeles and statewide, are calling for the state to increase per-pupil funding to $20,000 by 2020, which would nearly double the state’s allocation for education funding.

The governor also wields significant influence by signing or vetoing bills. Legislation already in process includes Assemblymember Shirley Weber’s AB 1220 extending the probation time for teachers before they are granted tenure. Education advocates are also looking to address the teacher shortage and for more transparency and accountability on where state funds are spent.

2. How will the governor’s race affect the state Board of Education?

Whoever becomes the governor in November will appoint 11 members to the state Board of Education, which has the authority to set education policy. The board determines what textbooks will be used, academic standards for each subject, accountability standards for schools, and curriculum frameworks. After removing the Academic Performance Index (API), which had rated schools using a single score based on test results, the board spent years creating a new evaluation tool. Last year it launched the color-coded and oft-criticized Dashboard, which includes a variety of ways to measure schools but does not use a single score or grade to easily compare schools.

The board also authorizes 22 charter schools around the state.

The state Board of Education is also in charge of implementing the new federal education law called Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA. The state approved its plan and submitted it to the federal government in September. In late December the U.S. Department of Education gave its initial feedback and asked for substantive changes to the plan, which must be addressed by the state Board of Education. The board has not yet identified how it will identify the bottom 5 percent of schools. It must begin to implement the accountability system under ESSA in the 2018-19 school year.

3. Will Marshall Tuck prevail in his second run at state superintendent of schools?

Also on the statewide ballot is the race for the superintendent of public instruction. Incumbent Tom Torlakson cannot run due to term limits, so the race is an open contest between Marshall Tuck and state Assemblyman Tony Thurmond.

Tuck, who used to lead Green Dot Public Schools, a charter school network in LA, and the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, a nonprofit organization formed by Villaraigosa that runs 19 LA Unified schools and seeks to improve the low-performing campuses, ran four years ago and narrowly lost to Torlakson. That race was the most expensive on the ballot that year.

Tuck is supported by the education reform community and charter school supporters. Thurmond, who represents the East San Francisco Bay area, has been endorsed by the California Teachers Association and U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris.

4. Will California’s ESSA plan be approved?

The state Board of Education is in charge of implementing the federal education law called the Every Student Succeeds Act. The law signed by President Barack Obama in 2015 gives states much of the authority to hold schools and school districts accountable for student success and to implement standards and assessments. Each state must submit plans that detail how they will comply with the law to the U.S. Department of Education, which must approve each plan. The California Department of Education submitted its plan to comply with the law in September and received its first feedback at the end of December, asking for substantial changes.

Advocates have criticized the state’s plan saying it doesn’t go far enough in detailing how the bottom 5 percent of schools will be identified for extra help. ESSA requires that states identify which schools are among the bottom 5 percent in performance and intervene to provide those schools with extra support.

5. Will LCFF finally be fully funded?

School districts are anxiously awaiting the release of the governor’s proposed budget in January. Some are expecting that the governor will fully fund the Local Control Funding Formula, which he created in 2013-14, that gives school districts more flexibility in spending and allocates more funds to districts with larger numbers of low-income students, English learners, and students who are in foster care.

LCFF is expected to be fully funded in the 2020-21 school year. However, Gov. Jerry Brown could choose to speed up that timeline and fully fund it this year before he leaves office. This year LCFF is at about 97 percent funded.

All of the leading candidates for governor have said that they support LCFF and will continue it if they are elected.

6. Are California’s rising graduation rates for real?

High school graduation rates locally and nationally hit record highs in 2017. The graduation rate for LA Unified’s Class of 2017 was 80 percent, and Superintendent Michelle King has made 100 percent graduation her goal — a feat not achieved by any urban school district. In LA Unified, graduation rates have been bolstered by a $15 million credit recovery program to help students who have failed classes earn enough credits to graduate. The rigor of the online courses as part of the credit recovery program has been questioned because students can pre-test out of taking the course and earn credit.

Some LA Unified school board members want to raise graduation requirements to require at least a C in college prep classes, undoing a vote of the previous board to lower the requirement to a D. For the Class of 2016, less than half of graduates were eligible for the University of California and California State University systems, which require a C in those classes.

7. How will LA deal with its problem of chronically absent students?

Under the new California Dashboard, schools and school districts will now be evaluated for how often their students attend class. A student is considered chronically absent if he or she misses 15 or more days of school.

Schools also have a financial incentive to improve attendance rates, as state funding for schools is based on daily attendance. Chronic absenteeism in LA Unified increased by 1 percent last year, despite a focus on improving attendance. That decline cost the district $45 million in state revenue.

A new task force spearheaded by philanthropist and former L.A. Times publisher Austin Beutner and King has made attendance its first area of focus. The district will start to implement the task force’s recommendations this year, including a social media campaign directed at telling parents the importance of sending their children to school every day.

Read our year-end roundups: 

Our 17 most popular articles about Los Angeles schools from 2017

The top 7 charts of 2017: LAUSD by the numbers

It’s been a big year of big numbers at the nation’s second-largest school district.

2017 saw the most expensive school board race in U.S. history, new graduation highs, and soaring employee benefit costs.

The lows included a steeper drop in enrollment than predicted, a steady march to a structural deficit, and further financial losses because more students are chronically absent.

• Read more from The 74: 10 Charts That Changed the Way We Think About America’s Schools in 2017

Here are seven important charts that told some of the top stories of the year in Los Angeles, starting with the impending budget deficit as that is arguably the biggest challenge the district faces.

Structural budget deficit

LA Unified budget officials continue to warn that the district faces a structural deficit in 2019-20, estimated at $420 million that year. Costs are rising faster than revenue will grow, fueled in large part by declining enrollment. In 2019-20, the district is expecting revenues will increase by $6.2 million, while costs will rise by $181.4 million.

Source: LA Unified

Declining enrollment

The district has been losing students since 2002-03 when enrollment peaked at about 750,000, and this year enrollment declined even more than officials projected. Enrollment has fallen as the birth rate throughout the county has declined, the number of independent charter schools has grown, and housing costs have driven families to more affordable suburbs. This chart shows how enrollment has fallen since 2010-11 and is projected to continue its downward spiral.

The district has attempted to stem the tide of the decline by increasing popular programs like dual language and magnet programs, though it remains to be seen if these programs will have an impact.

Healthcare and pension spending

Soaring costs for healthcare benefits and retiree pensions will eat up half of all available funds by 2031-32, according to a chart presented to the school board in August. This assumes that the district continues to pay increases in healthcare costs, which typically rise about 4.5 percent a year. In the current negotiations, employee unions are calling for even more investment, while the district wants to hold the costs steady and to finance year-to-year increases through a reserve fund. It has already promised not to cut employees’ healthcare benefits. The unions want the district to agree to pay for some increases out of its operating budget, which district officials say would cost $1.25 billion by 2021.

Source: LA Unified

Chronic absences

School funding is based on the number of students who attend class each day. When students are absent, the district loses out on funding. Despite a focus on getting more kids to class, the number of students who were chronically absent in LA Unified grew by 1 percent last year from the year before. A student is considered chronically absent if he or she misses 15 or more days of school. An advisory panel spearheaded by Austin Beutner, philanthropist and former L.A. Times publisher, and Superintendent Michelle King has made chronic absenteeism its first focus. The panel gave a preview of its recommendations, showing that if every student in LA Unified attends one more day of school, the district will generate an additional $30 million in revenue.

District officials said this month that they will begin to implement the task force’s recommendations, which include pilot programs and a social media campaign explaining the importance of sending children to school every day.

A-G courses

We reported this spring that for the Class of 2016, just 47 percent earned a C or better in all of their required college prep courses. That meant less than half the graduates were eligible for California’s public universities. Some advocates and school board members support raising graduation requirements. This chart shows the percentage of students who graduated with at least a C in all of their A-G college prep courses and the percentage of students who received a D or above in those courses, which earns them a high school diploma. King has said the district’s goal is 100 percent graduation — a feat not achieved by any large urban school district.

Homeless students

The number of homeless students in LA Unified grew by 50 percent this year to the highest number recorded by the district. To explain why, officials point to the increased number of homeless people in Los Angeles and nationally and the lack of affordable housing for low-income families. Another reason for the increase is because LA Unified has doubled its staff who work with homeless from 14 to 29 people. “We’re able to better more accurately identify students who are experiencing homelessness,” said Michelle Castelo Alferes, the district’s director of pupil services.

New school board

This spring the city held the most expensive school board election in the nation’s history. Nearly $17 million was spent by candidates and outside groups divided between union backers and education reformers and charter school supporters. Ultimately, the school board president was unseated and two new young school board members joined the board, making for a 4-3 reform majority. After the election, we broke down the new board to look at their demographics and backgrounds.

Teachers participate in a rally on Nov. 16. (Photo: UTLA’s website)

*UPDATED

With a crushing $13 billion in unfunded healthcare liabilities, LA Unified and its employee unions return to the negotiating table Monday still far apart — unions want increases in health benefits, the district wants to stop the bleeding — so the district is coming prepared. This month it secured the blessing of the school board to file a complaint against the teachers union if talks break down.

What’s not on the table is cutting benefits. District negotiators already agreed they wouldn’t, even though LA Unified faces a structural deficit in three years. But the district is holding the line to keep costs from rising. It wants to keep healthcare costs stable at $1.1 billion annually through 2020 and proposes tapping a reserve fund to do so. The unions’ proposal would increase those costs to $1.25 billion by 2021, and it rejects relying on that fund.

LA Unified employees have among the most generous health benefits for public employees in the nation. Employees and their dependents do not pay premiums and have lifetime benefits.

United Teachers Los Angeles leaders have said they are prepared to strike if negotiations don’t go their way. So the district this month sought and won authorization from the school board to file a complaint if talks unravel.

The 5-1 vote in closed session, with Scott Schmerelson voting no and Kelly Gonez absent because she was representing the board at a California School Boards Association conference, authorized the district to file an unfair labor practice action with the Public Employment Relations Board if UTLA stops negotiating. In an interview, the district’s chief negotiator, Najeeb Khoury, said UTLA so far is willing to come to the bargaining table, with negotiating sessions scheduled through January, so the district does not have plans to file the complaint.

“At this point, we don’t think it’s necessary,” Khoury said.

Alex Caputo-Pearl, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, had threatened to create a “state crisis” in early 2018 around contract negotiations throughout California. Contracts expired in June for teachers and other school workers in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Bernardino, Oakland, and San Francisco.

Last week, San Francisco settled with its teachers union and Oakland approved $9 million in budget cuts, but negotiations continue in the other cities. However, no coordinated action has been seen so far.

“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 of 800 activists in a July 2016 speech at the UTLA Leadership Conference. “There simply may be no other way to protect our health benefits and to shock the system into investing in the civic institution of public education.”

He described a series of actions, including a paid media campaign, which launched earlier this year. The union has held a number of pickets at school sites in Los Angeles rallying to keep their healthcare benefits intact.

Caputo-Pearl said the district early on in negotiations threatened to slash healthcare benefits. He called the district’s current proposal “progress.”

“This is very significant progress, and it is a direct result of our organizing and escalation,” he wrote in a November post on UTLA’s website.

“We must keep up that organizing and keep pushing on healthcare,” he wrote. “We must ensure that any multi-year healthcare agreement does not deplete the healthcare reserve. If it does, that will be used by the district to justify an attack on healthcare in future years.”

RESERVE FUND

In its proposal submitted to the employee unions in October, the district agreed to not make any changes to employees’ healthcare plans, but rather than automatically paying for increases in healthcare costs, officials want to draw on a $250 million reserve fund that has been created as the district has set aside more for healthcare costs than it has spent. The employee unions want the district to fund the increases through larger contributions to healthcare benefits rather than draw down the reserve fund.

At that bargaining session, the district offered to keep funding benefits at the same level that the district has funded this year — $1.1 billion. Typically, the district has automatically funded increases in healthcare costs, which rise about 4.5 percent each year.

The employee unions returned to the bargaining table before the Thanksgiving break with a counter-proposal that asks for a 4.57 percent increase in contributions from the district for 2018, and a 3 percent increase for each of the three following years, according to district spokeswoman Shannon Haber.

The unions have come down from their initial proposal, which asked for the same 4.57 percent increase in contributions for 2018, a 7.9 percent increase for 2019, an 8.4 percent increase for 2020, an 8.2 percent increase for 2021, a 9 percent increase for 2022, and a 9 percent increase for 2023.

The district estimated that original proposal would have cost about $1.6 billion by 2023.

LA Unified says it will save $65 million annually over the next three years with its proposal by not automatically funding increases.

“Historically, we have never held our health benefits contribution steady,” Khoury said. “We’ve always increased them at a certain yearly percentage.”

The lead negotiators for the unions did not respond to requests for comment.

The district negotiates healthcare benefits with all of the eight employee unions at once. Those unions are UTLA, Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, California School Employees Association, LA County Building and Construction Trades Council, LA School Police Association, LA School Police Management Association, SEIU Local 99, and Teamsters Local 572.

The district then negotiates the rest of the contract, including salary, individually with each union.

‘STOP THE BLEEDING’

As the district faces a budget deficit due to declining enrollment, some school board members have suggested that adjustments need to be made for new employees. The district held a deep-dive session this summer exploring different ways to cut or adjust benefits to save money but has not publicly made any decisions. The district faces a $13.6 billion unfunded liability for retiree healthcare benefits.

During that presentation to the school board, budget officials showed board members a sobering graphic — that by 2031-32, half of the district’s general fund budget would be spent on healthcare benefits and pension costs.

Under the district’s proposal at the bargaining table, however, that target would move beyond 2031-32. District officials said that projection assumed that the district would pay for automatic increases in healthcare costs, which it is now trying to halt.

School board vice president Nick Melvoin said in an interview that the district’s proposal to freeze its spending was “a big deal” and unprecedented.

“It’s necessary, but not sufficient,” he said. “We have a long way to go.”

Melvoin said he would like to see a “cost neutral” deal for the district for this negotiating session and then look at how to reduce the district’s $13.6 billion liability for retiree healthcare benefits in the future.

The district needs to “stop the bleeding,” Melvoin said.

Typically the district has negotiated healthcare benefits and salary with employee unions separately. But Melvoin said he would like to see the negotiations happening simultaneously. And parents want to participate too. Last month parents and community members asked the school board for a seat at the table during contract talks.

“We need to consider this as a whole package,” Melvoin said. “What I have been committed to since being on the board is you can’t continue to assent to deals without finding a way to pay for it.”

*UPDATED to add that Gonez was absent from the meeting because she was attending a California School Boards Association conference.

Despite more surveyed parents wanting school to start after Labor Day, the LA Unified school board voted Tuesday to keep the current school calendar for the next three years.

Classes will begin in mid-August, with a week off for Thanksgiving, a three-week winter break, and a weeklong spring break. The first semester will end before the winter break, as it does now — a priority for many high school seniors who are preparing for college entrance exams and submitting college applications during that time.

School board members Kelly Gonez, Nick Melvoin, Scott Schmerelson, and board President Mónica García voted for the schedule, which was the superintendent’s recommendation.

School board member Ref Rodriguez voted no because he wanted to adopt only a one-year calendar.

School board members George McKenna and Richard Vladovic supported an alternative plan where school would have started on Aug. 28 next year and ended on June 24 with the first semester ending after the winter break. This calendar called for a two-week winter break and three days off for Thanksgiving. That vote failed 2 to 5.

THE NEW CALENDAR

The board adopted the following schedule for the next three years.

For the 2018-19 school year:
School will begin on Aug. 14, and the first semester will end on Dec. 14, 2018.
School will resume after winter break on Jan. 7 and end on June 7, 2019.
Spring break will be April 15 to 19.

For the 2019-20 school year:
School will begin on Aug. 20, and the first semester will end on Dec. 20, 2019.
School will resume after winter break on Jan. 13 and end on June 12, 2020.
Spring break will be April 6 to 10.

For the 2020-21 school year:
School will begin on Aug. 18, and the first semester will end on Dec. 18, 2020.
School will resume after winter break on Jan. 11 and end on June 10, 2021.
Spring break will be March 26 to 30.

The calendars also include school holidays for Admission Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day and Memorial Day.

Vladovic said he opposed the superintendent’s recommendation to start the school year in mid-August because most parents in the survey said they wanted school to start after Labor Day.

“My feeling is my parents that I represent in District 7 overwhelmingly said they want the late start, and I support them,” he said.

He said the district doesn’t have data showing that student achievement improved after the district moved the school start to mid-August, which began with the 2012-13 school year.

McKenna said he wanted there to be more equity in the number of instructional days in each semester. In the calendar that was approved, which McKenna opposed, there are 79 days in the first semester and 101 days in the second semester, McKenna said. McKenna’s proposal had 88 days in the first semester and 92 days in the second semester.

“The proposed calendar is not instructionally sound. It certainly meets the needs of employees and some parents before the needs of students,” McKenna said.

McKenna and other school board members pointed to issues with the survey questions and how they were posed. The survey cost the district $250,000, Rodriguez said.

“We seemed to have ignored their input,” McKenna said of the parent survey.

Melvoin said parents want clarity and consistency about the school calendar and said many were frustrated with the board’s vote last year to reverse a previous decision to approve a three-year calendar last year to start closer to Labor Day, only to approve a one-year calendar with a mid-August start date.

“The desire of parents to get something done outweighs imperfections,” Melvoin said.

In January, the school board approved a one-year calendar and voted to survey parents and employees to find out their preferences about when the school year should begin.

SURVEY RESULTS

The district last year commissioned a survey of parents and staff, which was conducted in September, both online and on paper. Thirty-eight percent, or 169,273 families, responded to the survey.

In four of the seven board districts, parents said they wanted a start date after Labor Day. Most parents wanted to keep the full week off for Thanksgiving and the three-week winter break. Only parents in Melvoin’s Board District 4, serving the west side and Hollywood, preferred a two-week winter break.

Of the parents surveyed, 36 percent said the school year should start after Labor Day, 32 percent disagreed, 31 percent had no preference, and 1 percent did not respond.

Twenty-one percent of parents surveyed said school should start in early August, 21 percent said school should start in mid-August, 20 percent said school should start in late-August, and 18 percent disagreed that school should start in August, while 18 percent had no preference and 2 percent did not respond.

The survey also asked parents if students in kindergarten through eighth grade should be on a different schedule than high school students. Sixty-eight percent of parents said the calendar should be the same for students in all grade levels.

Most parents — 39 percent — wanted a five-day Thanksgiving break; 44 percent wanted a three-week winter break.

Employees who took the survey also supported the current school calendar. Employees preferred to keep the school start before Labor Day, but that vote was closer than among parents — 47 percent said they disagreed that school should start after Labor Day.

And 65 percent of employees wanted a five-day Thanksgiving break, and 69 percent of employees wanted a three-week winter break.

Bancroft Middle’s robotics team. The Hollywood school has a STEAM magnet. (Courtesy: LA Unified)

Before LA School Report published a new district database that breaks down state standardized test scores at LA Unified’s magnet programs and schools, parents weren’t able to compare which magnet programs were academically successful and which ones weren’t.

Many magnets are a “school within a school,” but the state does not report student scores at a magnet center separately from the traditional school where the magnet is housed. Now with the new data, parents can look at how magnet programs are doing — a critical tool for parents who have applied to magnet programs and will decide this spring where to send their child next year.

Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to identify a magnet program that might fit your child’s interests and how to use the new database to look up students’ past academic performance at the magnet you’re interested in.

Let’s say your daughter was interested in robotics and you wanted to send her to a middle school that had a STEM focus. You would apply to a STEM magnet school through the district’s new unified enrollment system.

You go to the district’s eChoices webpage and use the “selection tool” and drop-down menus to select magnets that have a science, technology, engineering, and math focus, and you also think your child might qualify for a gifted program for sixth grade, and a result is Bancroft Middle School in Hollywood.

To see how students at Bancroft’s STEAM magnet performed on state tests last year, you would look up Bancroft in the data published here. The new district data break down Bancroft’s scores into its Performing Arts and Gifted Science Technology Engineering and Math magnets and the scores of students who attend the traditional school campus.

It shows results from 2016 and 2017 and how the scores changed from year to year. It also shows the percentage of low-income, English learners, and foster youth who are enrolled in each program.

This graphic shows 77 percent of the students in the STEAM program were proficient in English last year (a 4 percentage point increase from 2016) and 65 percent were proficient in math (a 5 percentage point increase).

But it is a gifted program, so students must show the ability or strong potential to work two grades above their grade level.

You can also see that 83 percent of the students in the STEAM magnet are from low-income families — just about the same as the district average of 84 percent — and 3.3 percent are English learners, much lower than district’s average of 25 percent, which is also the average on Bancroft’s traditional campus.

Before the data were published, the only available data were published by the state, which only has the scores for the entire school.

You would have had to go to the state’s website, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, where results on state standardized test scores are listed to see how students at Bancroft performed on the Common Core-aligned tests.

You select LA County and LA Unified in the drop-down menus and you get confused because you don’t see Bancroft listed under B. So you Google search “Bancroft Middle School LAUSD” and you discover the actual name is Hubert Howe Bancroft Middle School.

So you go back to the CAASPP site and you find the school under H.

This is what you see for the English language arts results for the tests taken last spring: sixth-graders were 30 percent proficient in English.

Bancroft Middle School students’ results on the English portion of the CAASPP in 2017.

Scroll down and this is what you would see for math: sixth-graders were 16 percent proficient in math.

Bancroft Middle School students’ results on the math portion of the CAASPP in 2017.

The average for all sixth-graders in LA Unified, not including independent charters, was 37 percent in English and 28 percent in math.

Here are the links to the data for you to peruse.

• Here is the complete data set from the district including magnets, traditional schools, and charters. The data show 2016 and 2017 results.
• Here is the data set for English scores at magnets, charters, and traditional schools ordered to show schools with the highest 2017 English scores first.
• Here is the data set for math scores at magnets, charters, and traditional schools ordered to show schools with the highest 2017 math scores first.

When looking at the spreadsheets, make sure to click the tab at the bottom titled “KEY” to help you identify what the codes mean.

• Read more: EXCLUSIVE: For the first time, parents can now compare student achievement at all LAUSD magnets

• Here are the high- and low-performing LAUSD magnets

LA School Report just published a district database that for the first time allows parents to compare how students at all of the district’s magnet schools and programs performed on state tests last spring and the year before.

Magnets are often a “school within a school,” and test scores for these individual magnet centers aren’t posted on the state’s website, nor does LA Unified publish them. But LA School Report requested the data and made it available today.

• Read more: EXCLUSIVE: For the first time, parents can now compare student achievement at all LAUSD magnets

This year, 76,000 of the district’s 620,000 students are enrolled in 226 magnet centers and schools.

There are 49 standalone magnet schools, according to district figures. These “self-contained” schools do have their individual results posted online. Some examples are Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies on the west side or Arroyo Seco Museum Science Magnet School in Highland Park.

The new data show results from the Common Core-aligned tests taken in the spring and the year before. They also break down the programs showing the percentage of students who took the test who are low-income, English learners, and foster youth.

The tests, known as California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress or Smarter Balanced Assessments (SBAC), are taken in grades 3 through 8 and grade 11.

The database also shows the test scores of students who attend traditional district schools and independent charter schools.

The following is an LA School Report analysis of the magnets portion of the database:
(View the entire database here and the article on the release of the data here.)

An asterisk indicates selective magnets, such as gifted and high ability.

ENGLISH LEARNERS

Top performing magnets that have a high percentage of English learners (above 50 percent proficient in math or English):
Dr. Sammy Lee Elementary Medical and Health Science Magnet (39.4 percent EL)
Broadous Elementary Math Science Technology Magnet (31.3 percent)
Flournoy Elementary Math, Science, Technology Magnet (26.4 percent)
Miles Avenue Elementary Math Science Technology Magnet (25.9 percent)
107th Street Elementary Math Science Technology Magnet (22.4 percent)

LOW-INCOME

Top performing magnets that have a high percentage of low-income students (above 50 percent proficient in math or English):
Roosevelt Senior High School Math, Science, Technology Magnet (96.6 percent free/reduced-priced lunch)
Markham Middle School Health Careers Magnet (95.9 percent)
Flournoy Elementary Math, Science, Technology Magnet (95.4 percent)
Bethune Middle School Math, Science, Technology Magnet (95.1 percent)
Fremont Senior High School Math, Science, Technology Magnet (94.6 percent)

FOSTER YOUTH

Top performing magnets with the highest percentage of foster youth (above 50 percent proficient in English or math:
Clifford Street Math and Technology Magnet (2.5 percent foster youth)
Gledhill St Elementary Science, Technology and Math Magnet (1.7 percent)

TOP AND BOTTOM SCORES

Top-performing magnets in English:
Downtown Business Magnets High School (100 percent proficient)
*North Hollywood Senior High Highly Gifted Magnet (100 percent)
*Portola Middle School Highly Gifted Magnet (99 percent)
Millikan STEM Magnet (98 percent)
*San Jose St. Elementary Highly Gifted Magnet (98 percent)

Top-performing magnets in math:
Millikan STEM Magnet (100 percent proficient)
*Portola Middle School Highly Gifted Magnet (99 percent)
*North Hollywood Senior High Highly Gifted Magnet (99 percent)
*San Jose Street Elementary Highly Gifted Magnet (98 percent)
*Wonderland Avenue Elementary Magnet (98 percent)

Low-performing magnets in English:
Tom Bradley Global Awareness Magnet (13 percent proficient)
Dorsey Senior High School Law and Public Service Magnet (14 percent)
Dorsey Senior High Math, Science, Technology Magnet (16 percent)
Hillcrest Dr. Elementary Magnet (16 percent)
Sun Valley Magnet Elementary School (21 percent)

Low-performing magnets in math:
Crenshaw Magnet Business, Entrepreneurship and Technology (0 percent proficient)
Crenshaw Magnet Visual/Performing Arts (2 percent)
Dorsey Senior High Law and Public Service Magnet (2 percent)
Crenshaw Magnet Science, Technology, Engineering, Math and Medicine (4 percent)
Washington Senior High Science, Technology, Math Magnet (6 percent)
Dorsey Senior High Science, Technology, Math Magnet (6 percent)

MOST AND LEAST IMPROVED

Magnets that were most improved from 2016 to 2017:
Cesar Chavez Learning Academies ArTES Magnet (26 percentage point increase in ELA and 20 percentage points in math)
107th Street Elementary Math, Science, Technology Magnet (24 percentage point increase in math)
Humphreys Avenue Elementary Magnet (20 percentage point increase in math)

Magnets that showed the biggest decline from 2016 to 2017:
Banning College Incentive Program B & T (declined 28 percentage points in English)
Fremont Senior High Math, Science, Technology Magnet (declined 23 percentage points in math)
Canoga Park Senior High LG Magnet (declined 22 percentage points in math)

DISTRICT AVERAGES

LA Unified’s averages on this year’s Smarter Balanced tests were 40 percent proficient in English and 30 percent proficient in math.

The average for students at magnet schools was 60 percent proficient in English and 48 percent proficient in math.

Vintage Magnet students, from left, Krystelle Arcinas, Marissa Soto, Nadia Wilson, and Alex Lopez with Principal Nancy Mourao and the National Blue Ribbon plaque awarded by the U.S. Department of Education. (Courtesy: LA Unified)

For the first time, parents can now compare standardized test results at all of LA Unified’s highly sought-after magnet programs.

Because many magnets are a “school within a school” — called magnet centers — students’ academic achievement is not reported by the state separately from the traditional school campus where the magnet centers are located. Nor has LA Unified published these scores.

But new district data released to LA School Report show state test scores at all 226 magnets — both the magnet centers and the standalone schools.

Students overall at LA Unified’s magnet programs have high academic achievement. But just because a school has the word “magnet” in its name does not mean its students always achieve high levels of academic success. This data will help parents research which magnet programs are exceeding standards and which aren’t. The data also show parents which magnet programs are successful at serving disadvantaged students. The data show the percentage low-income, English learners, and foster youth at each magnet center and school.

Here are the links to the district’s data:

• COMPLETE DATA. Here is the complete data set from the district including magnets, traditional schools, and charters. The data show 2016 and 2017 results, ranked by 2017 English proficiency scores.
• ENGLISH SCORES. Here is the data set for English scores at magnets, charters, and traditional schools ordered to show schools with the highest 2017 English scores first.
• MATH SCORES. Here is the data set for math scores at magnets, charters, and traditional schools ordered to show schools with the highest 2017 math scores first.

(The data show test scores at all elementary, middle, and high schools for two years. A tab at the bottom of the spreadsheet labeled “KEY” will help you understand the codes used in the data. Affiliated charter schools are labeled as traditional schools. Here is a list of magnet programs that are gifted or high-ability with academic admission requirements; you can also see these by searching the spreadsheets for “HG, G/HG, G/HA, GHA, G/HG/HA, H/G”)

COMPARING TYPES OF SCHOOLS

This year there are 76,000 students enrolled in 177 magnet centers and 49 magnet schools. Those students make up 12 percent of LA Unified’s total enrollment of 620,000 students. The data provided by the district also include traditional schools and independent charter schools.

The full data set is more than just comparing whether magnets or charter schools are “better.” It gives parents the tools to evaluate individual programs using academic and demographic data to decide what might be best fit for their child.

Former Superintendent Ramon Cortines was the first to ask the district’s data and accountability staff to conduct an analysis comparing the city’s magnets and charter schools. That analysis, of the first year of the new state test results in 2015, showed that students at magnets outperformed students at independent charter schools, although the demographics of magnets and charters do not match up evenly, and some magnet schools are for highly gifted students. To qualify for a gifted program, students must show an ability or strong potential to work two years above their grade level.

Kindergartners perform “Celebrate” at Vintage Magnet, which is one of two LA Unified schools to earn a National Blue Ribbon award this year. (Courtesy: LA Unified)

This fall, LA School Report asked for the district’s analysis of the 2017 test scores, and the district for the first time released the spreadsheet behind its analysis that showed students at magnets continued to outperform their peers at charters overall.

An LA School Report analysis of that data found that even after removing highly gifted magnets, students at magnets still outperformed charter schools.

• Read more: Exclusive: Even after taking out gifted magnets, LAUSD magnets outperform charter schools on state standardized tests

But many agree that comparing magnets to charters is not apples to apples because charters serve a more high-needs population.

According to the district analysis of last school year’s test scores, 83 percent of students at charter schools are economically disadvantaged and 19 percent are English learners.

Comparatively, 73 percent of students who attend the district’s magnet schools are economically disadvantaged and 5 percent are English learners.

LA Unified isn’t required to publicly report the data on their individual magnet programs and oftentimes there is a resistance by districts in general to release more information than required. But in response to questions by LA School Report about why the district hasn’t released the data, Kevon Tucker-Seeley, LA Unified’s director of the Research and Reporting Branch of the Office of Data and Accountability, said it is something the district will consider.

“Moving forward, we can certainly consider a different approach for reporting results,” he said in an email. “Regardless, we should continue making strides toward making data more accessible to parents through our new unified enrollment system and through the parent portal.”

LA School Report is releasing the complete data set to help parents make the critical decision of where they will send their child to school as they are making decisions for the next school year. The deadline to apply to magnets through the unified enrollment system passed earlier this month. Families are tentatively set to receive selection letters around March 14. The deadline for families to decide which program they will choose is tentatively set for April 7.

WHY COMPARABLE DATA AREN’T EASILY AVAILABLE

The state standardized test scores that are posted in an easily digestible format on the state’s website don’t break out magnets unless magnets are a standalone school, such as Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies on the Westside or Arroyo Seco Museum Science Magnet School in Highland Park.

Most magnets are a school within a school, and so when the state standardized test scores are posted, the results of all the students on the campus, including any magnets and the traditional school, are combined.

Charter schools, which are independently run, are easier to compare because the standardized test scores are posted for each individual school on the state’s website. LA Unified has 224 charter schools, more than any other city in the nation. Charters account for 18 percent of the total student enrollment in public schools at about 110,000 students.

MAGNETS: THE ANSWER TO LAUSD’S ENROLLMENT PROBLEM?

The district has turned to magnets as its enrollment has steadily declined since its peak of 750,000 in 2002-03. The enrollment slide is attributed to families that have left the city for the suburbs due to LA’s skyrocketing home prices, the growth of charter schools, and a birth rate countywide that has slowed down. Many magnets have waitlists — last year the district reported that 25,000 students were waitlisted for magnets. (Another sought-after program the district will expand are dual-language programs.)

But not all magnets are successful.

Alan Warhaftig, who retired last year after more than a decade as the magnet program co-coordinator at Fairfax High School, believes that the district’s goal of rapid expansion of magnets could dilute the success of the programs.

He said principals’ number 1, 2, and 3 top priorities are increasing enrollment.

“The solution that they look at is ‘I want a magnet’, they have no idea what’s involved with a successful magnet,” he said. If managing a second magnet program is added to the workload of a magnet coordinator, it cuts that person’s time in half, Warhaftig said.

(Warhaftig has released his own data analysis of high schools, which includes magnets, charters, and traditional schools both in LA Unified and in other nearby school districts.)

Ben Feinberg, who teaches eighth-grade math at Luther Burbank Middle School in Highland Park, disagrees that an expansion of magnets will dilute their quality. Burbank has a Math-Science-Technology Magnet and a Police Academy Magnet.

“Having a strong magnet coordinator and strong teachers are important. But, as a magnet teacher and a former LAUSD magnet student, I would argue that the deepest strength of the magnet program comes from the integration experience itself,” he said. “Especially in a segregated city like Los Angeles, bringing students from different backgrounds and communities together creates a more powerful learning environment.”

(Feinberg also blogs about LA Unified’s accountability data at schooldatanerd.com.)

Magnets were created in the 1970s to desegregate schools. They are called magnets because they are open to anyone in the district, but parents must apply to them and acceptance is based on a points system. Points are given if a student’s neighborhood school is overcrowded, if a student’s sibling attends the school, if the student has been wait-listed at another magnet, and a student’s race is also considered because of the desegregation mission of magnet schools. The district generally offers free busing to elementary students who live more than two miles from their magnet school and to high school students who live more than five miles from their school. Busing is not always guaranteed.

DEMAND FOR DATA

Education advocates in Los Angeles say they have longed to see this data.

Parent advocates say the data is needed to help parents choose the best options for their children, and others say data should be made public to identify which magnets are successful and which should be replicated or expanded so more children have access to a high-performing option.

The mission of Great Public Schools Now, led by Executive Director Myrna Castrejón, is to replicate successful schools no matter their model — charter, magnet, pilot, or traditional schools. At its launch last year, GPSN calculated that 160,000 students attend low-performing schools in 10 low-income neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles.

Earlier this year the nonprofit organization gave replication grants to King/Drew Magnet High School of Medicine and Science and a pilot school so that these successful LA Unified programs can expand to serve more students.

In an interview, Castrejón said GPSN relied on schools that applied for the grants to self-report their test scores because GPSN did not have access to this data for magnet centers located on a traditional school campus because the state combines the students’ scores.

“The academic record is simply much more easily verifiable (at charters),” Castrejón said. “That’s a structural problem with how data is reported to the state.”

Many education leaders emphasize test scores should not be the sole way to evaluate a school as was previously done under the state’s Academic Performance Index, or API. The state Board of Education has created a dashboard to evaluate schools on things like suspension rates and chronic absenteeism, in addition to test scores. Some advocates maintain that the dashboard doesn’t go far enough in helping parents evaluate schools because it doesn’t include a summative rating.

The district’s unified enrollment system that parents used for the first time this year to apply to magnets and other district options did not contain information about student academics, but it did contain other information about the schools like what after-school activities are offered, if Advanced Placement classes are available, and notable alumni.

And the new system shows parents how many students applied to each program last year and how many seats are available for the next school year.

Castrejón said when she moved to Los Angeles last year from Sacramento as she took the helm of GPSN and was looking for a school for her sixth-grade son, the first thing she looked at was test results. The next step was visiting the school to see student learning in action and experience the school’s environment.

“It’s all about finding the right match and it’s about the passion,” Castrejón said. Her son has a love of music.

Seth Litt, executive director of Parent Revolution, who is on the district’s Unified Enrollment Taskforce, said he advocated for the district to include academic data as part of the new application system.

“Parents are being asked to make one of the most import decisions in their kids’ lives,” Litt said. “We need to do a better job of giving them information.”

Parent Revolution has dispatched its staff to help parents navigate the district’s choice programs. They have found that many families learn about the best schools by word-of-mouth.

“I think there is a broad hesitancy in LAUSD at all levels to share data with families that helps them compare their school options,” Litt said.

But LA Unified is not alone, as other districts typically don’t release this data either.

“It’s a rare thing for a district to proffer information that they’re not required to report in general. It’s the nature of bureaucracy,” Castrejón said.

“This kind of transparency is really ultimately what parents need and demand to make sure that we have a good sense for how far we have to go in improving educational equity.”

But the district has not closed the door to including the information in the future.

Nick Melvoin, who was elected to the school board this spring and serves as its vice president, said in an interview he wants the state test score data to be part of the district’s unified enrollment system, “so that it’s a really meaningful tool for parents.”

He said he wants the test score data and other accountability data about schools included as soon as possible so that parents have in one central place the information the district has available about every school.

Melvoin said he understands why the district is rolling out the unified enrollment system in phases considering the problems it has faced in the past when massive new tools have been introduced, such as the student tracking system MiSiS. He said the district needs to make more information available to parents quickly.

“We’re trying to do things very urgently since parents are choosing schools as we speak,” Melvoin said.

When it comes to the district’s planned expansion of magnets, Melvoin wants to ensure the district evaluates the success of the programs.

“What I worry about in all areas of public policy is when fads can become tempting to replicate. Charters, magnets, STEM, STEAM. None of those words independently improve outcomes for kids,” he said.

“I’m worried that we latch onto the data that shows magnets are high-performing and we want to replicate them without understanding what makes the school high-performing.”

LA Unified school board President Mónica García at the Nov. 14 board meeting.

The city’s education community sent a clear message Tuesday from downtown Los Angeles to legislators in Sacramento: the governor’s funding formula has not “fixed” the state’s woefully underfunded public education system.

The LA Unified school board unanimously approved a resolution to spend resources to advocate in Sacramento to double education funding by 2020 to $20,000 in per-pupil revenue for students in public schools. Numerous organizations expressed their support for the board’s action.

“You took a bold step already in approving a resolution that will, in fact, help us to change the narrative,” said Jeff Dunn, the district’s new director of government relations.

“To the uninformed legislator that is not really in the education policy space, they see the fact that we changed the funding formula … (and might say) ‘What is the problem? We’ve fixed education.’ We know that, of course, is not the case. The figures are real. It’s not hocus pocus,” Dunn said.

The resolution was authored by school board member Kelly Gonez. It initially also called for funding to increase to $25,000 by 2022, but it was amended during Tuesday’s meeting to remove that part of the language.

“In working with our co-sponsors, we wanted to recognize that there are barriers to raising per-pupil funding, but despite these challenges, Sacramento must commit to dramatically increasing funding so that our schools get the investment they deserve,” Gonez’s chief of staff, Megan Vandenbos, said in an email.

Gonez was joined by her board colleagues George McKenna and Nick Melvoin as co-sponsors.

The resolution cites an EdWeek analysis of National Center for Education Statistics data that ranks California at 46th in the nation when it comes to per-pupil spending. When the district’s chief financial officer, Scott Price, was asked about this number, he acknowledged that ranking was based on 2014 data. Another ranking from the California Budget & Policy Center using 2015-16 data puts California at 41st in the nation in per-pupil spending when factoring in cost-of-living in each state.

“We are still far below the national average, and the crisis in funding schools is mitigated by people saying it’s not as bad,” school board President Mónica García said.

“It is appalling that a state as wealthy and as rich as California lies at 46th in the nation,” Dunn said. New York state spent about $18,191 in per-pupil spending in 2014. Dunn noted one difference between California and New York. New York does not have Prop. 13, which limits increases in property tax assessments in California.

• Read more: LAUSD is poised to join a big push to get more per-pupil money from the state. But where is California ranked, really?

Price gave a presentation that summarized the revenue challenges that LA Unified faces.

LA Unified Chief Financial Officer Scott Price giving a budget presentation to the board on Nov. 14.

There is a misconception that the Local Control Funding Formula, authored by Gov. Jerry Brown and enacted in 2013, “fixed” the budget challenges experienced during the recession, district officials said. LCFF gives more funds to districts that have higher numbers of students who are low-income, English learners, homeless, and foster youth and gives districts more flexibility in spending.

During the recession, the state borrowed money from K-12 education to pay for other state budgetary needs as the economy was spiraling, officials said. Price said the state has repaid the K-12 funding it borrowed during the recession and education revenue is now at pre-recession levels. However, a decade later, health-care costs continue to rise and the district has had to contribute more toward employee pensions in order to reduce the unfunded liability owed to retirees.

“It’s really eye-opening that our (increases in) STRS and PERS (contributions) alone almost equal our LCFF revenue,” Gonez said. CalSTRS is the state’s teacher retirement system, and CalPERS is the state’s public employee retirement system.

Districts receive money based on “average daily attendance,” which is based on enrollment. LA Unified’s enrollment has declined steadily since 2002-03. The district loses about 13,000 to 14,000 students a year.

“We are in severe declining enrollment,” Price said.

Although the state has increased its per-pupil allocation year-to-year, enrollment has decreased in LA Unified so rapidly and has been accompanied by increased costs, that the increase has not benefited the district as much as some people may think, Price said.

Source: LA Unified

The governor gave the district an additional $72.1 million in one-time spending this year, but school board member Richard Vladovic criticized one-time spending allocations, saying they are not sustainable to pay for ongoing costs.

“Even though we’ve received new revenues, we’re getting further in the hole,” Price said.

“If the state is improving, but we have fewer students enrolled, we have to adjust the revenue structure,” Price said.

Looking forward, the district has to submit three years of budget projections to the LA County Office of Education. In the third year, 2019-20, the additional revenue that the district is slated to receive — $6.2 million — does not cover the cost of projected increases in expenses: $181.4 million.

Acting Superintendent Vivian Ekchian said the “transparent conversation” was necessary but unpleasant.

“It’s real. In reality, we’ve moved to 80 percent graduation with very few funds,” she said.

Next month the board will hear a presentation on its first interim report on spending so far in this budget year. The governor releases his initial proposal for next year’s budget in January.

García announced that the board will hold a special meeting in two weeks on the budget.

A number of organizations voiced their support for the board’s decision including Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, Alliance for a Better Community, and the United Way of Greater Los Angeles.

Ama Nyamekye, executive director of Educators for Excellence Los Angeles, told the board she hopes the district not only advocates for more dollars but that it invests those funds equitably.

LA Chamber of Commerce Executive Vice President David Rattray, who oversees educational programs, said he hopes the district’s advocacy will include the message that LA Unified has surpassed the state average when it comes to the percentage of students who graduate eligible for the state’s public university systems in spite of inadequate funding.

“We’ve got to break the myth that LAUSD is not one of the best districts in the country,” Rattray said.

The Los Angeles teachers union, UTLA, and other labor groups are also calling for $20,000 per-pupil funding by 2020. However, no representative from UTLA addressed the board. UTLA had asked the district to join their call as part of contract negotiations. Ekchian thanked labor leaders for their collaboration on this issue.

It’s time for Sacramento to fully invest our education.
Today, the Board unanimously passed my resolution calling on the state to raise per-pupil spending. Thanks to the resolution’s cosponsors and the community organizations who spoke out in support of demanding change! pic.twitter.com/2FlEu0S4J1

— Kelly Gonez, LAUSD (@Kelly4LASchools) November 14, 2017

In other business Tuesday, the board unanimously approved a resolution authored by Melvoin to create an LA Unified mobile app. District officials will seek input from parents as to what information they would like to see included as part of the app and will release a plan in January to be considered by the board.

Now, there really WILL be an app for that! #TECHApp passes unanimously–excited to see research & development begin on new @LASchools app to modernize district communications & empower parents w/ accessible information and two-way communications! #kidsfirst

— Nick Melvoin (@nickmelvoin) November 14, 2017

LA Unified school board members will decide on Tuesday if they will join the local teachers union in a call to Sacramento to double education funding to $20,000 per student by 2020 and then to hit $25,000 by 2022.

Both the school board and UTLA have cited the figure that California ranks 46th in the nation when it comes to per-pupil spending. But there are a variety of rankings used to measure spending, and that one is outdated.

The resolution itself, authored by school board member Kelly Gonez, doesn’t cite a data source. When asked to provide the source, Megan Vandenbos, Gonez’s chief of staff, sent a link to Education Week’s 2017 Quality Counts report that ranks states on school spending, student achievement, and its “chance for success” index.

EdWeek’s ranking uses data from the National Center for Education Statistics and adjusts per-pupil funding for cost-of-living. The figures are for 2014 (the resolution says 2017).

In 2014, California spent $8,694 per pupil and ranked 46th, while New York, spent $18,191 per pupil and ranked third in the nation. First in the nation was Vermont at $19,654.

More recent figures come from the nonpartisan California Budget & Policy Center in a report released in January on 2015-16 spending, but even that report gives two different rankings.

In terms of state spending per K-12 student, the report gives California a rank of 41st. That’s $10,291 per student, adjusting for cost-of-living.

But when ranking education spending as a share of the state’s economy, California came in 37th, according to the report. Gonez’s resolution also includes this ranking.

The report also shows that per-pupil spending in California has increased since 2012-13 (when it ranked 50th in the nation) because of the state income tax increase called Prop. 30, which California voters extended last fall. Prop. 30 helped increase K-12 education funding that had been drastically reduced amid the Recession.

“However, the latest figures illustrate that a sizable gap between California spending per K-12 student and the U.S. remains,” the report states. The national average was $12,252 per student in 2015-16.

No matter the ranking, California is the world’s sixth-largest economy with a Gross Domestic Product of $2.4 trillion.

The state also has the highest rate of students in poverty in the nation and faces a shortage of skilled workers by 2025.

Gonez’s resolution, which also has the support of board members George McKenna and Nick Melvoin, points out that well-funded states like New York and Vermont consistently have higher student achievement results than California students on standardized assessments like the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

But California wasn’t always near the bottom. In the 1970s, California ranked in the top 10 nationwide in per-pupil education spending.

• Read more: Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Rob Kuznia’s report on education funding in California compared to other states. 

LA Unified is the largest school district in the state and the second-largest in the country. If its school board members unite in spending money to advocate in Sacramento and to fund a targeted media campaign, the weight of their voice would likely be heard. The district is looking for a state legislator to sponsor a bill.

Eric Premack, executive director of the Charter Schools Development Center, who used to work in the state Legislative Analyst’s office on education funding issues, said there is no perfect methodology to determine exactly where California ranks.

“All these comparisons are sort of fraught from one district to another and from one state to another,” he said. “Almost any methodology will put California well below the middle of the pack and sometimes near the bottom.”

Alex Caputo-Pearl, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, has also used the 46th ranking figure in calling for more state funding. He announced the union’s $20,000 per student by 2020 campaign during his State of the Union speech this summer. The school district is in contract negotiations with its labor groups, and UTLA asked the school board to join its call for more state funding as part of its bargaining proposal.

The board members’ resolution states that raising California to the top of the rankings when it comes to spending would allow LA Unified to have:

• Smaller class sizes
• Additional teacher training
• A full-time nurse at each school
• Transitional kindergarten in every elementary school
• Lower student to counselor ratios.

Alliance College-Ready Public Schools were slated to be denied Tuesday until the agreement was reached with the district. (Courtesy: Daisy Jauregui via Twitter)

LA Unified officials and school board members put politics aside Tuesday, agreeing to long-sought policy changes for charter schools and paving the way for unanimous board votes that ended up saving about a dozen independent charter schools from denials.

The changes to the rules that govern charter schools and who can make those changes will impact all future charter school petitions in the district, which oversees more charters than any in the nation.

In the past, district staff have drawn up the rules for charters — and maintained the right to change them at any time. The requirement that charters agree to the district’s ability to change rules the charters had already agreed to was one of the issues that prompted charter leaders to call for reforms.

The school board will now to get to vote on specific policies that charters must follow. The district’s charter division will draw up recommendations, and the board is expected to vote on them in April.

The district’s non-negotiables that charters agreed to be subject to are: inquires from the Office of Inspector General, compliance with the district’s modified federal consent decree regarding special education services, and that charter schools follow the district’s discipline policies.

In return, the charter schools will likely be able to enter into multi-year lease agreements at co-locations and will have the ability to go outside the district for special education services if they choose.

Acting Superintendent Vivian Ekchian announced the deal at the beginning of Tuesday’s board meeting, which drew 500 parents. She said the district had changed its recommendations on 18 petitions, all of which had been designated for rejection or had certain conditions attached because the charter operators would not agree to parts of the language that govern charters. A coalition of charter leaders have been working since April to amend the language, which they said impeded their efforts to offer a high-quality education to their students.

“The updated district-required language will apply to all charter petitions today and in the future,” Ekchian said. “It is important to note that no changes made to district language involves public accountability or student and staff safety.”

She added, “In LA Unified, our firm conviction is that all students deserve a quality education regardless of the type of school they attend.”

• Read the new district-required language for charter school petition here.

LA Unified has more charter schools than any other district in the nation. As of this fall, 18 percent of the 644,000 students in LA Unified are enrolled in nonprofit charter schools authorized by the district.

“I think we’ve really shown that we can make smart policy updates collaboratively that at the end of the day benefit kids and if we can continue that momentum that’s really where we want to get that we’re working together,” said Emilio Pack, CEO and founder of STEM Prep Schools who was involved in the negotiations and whose petition for a new charter school in South LA was approved.

“Any time you want to get to yes, you’ve got to compromise.”

“I feel good about the substance of what was accomplished, but I also feel good about the process,” school board member Nick Melvoin said after the meeting. Melvoin, who ousted the previous board president in the spring elections with support from charters, took a leadership role in getting the two sides to reach an agreement. The negotiations were conducted between the charter school operators and the Charter Schools Division staff and the superintendent’s office.

“We were able to get it done in what I think is a real collaborative spirit,” Melvoin said. One of his campaign promises was creating a more collaborative environment between the district and charter schools.

During Tuesday’s meeting, school board members George McKenna and Scott Schmerelson criticized the process, but in the end they voted to approve the district’s recommendations.

Notable Tuesday were the unanimous votes on all charter decisions, including three charter petitions that were denied. It was the first time since the new charter-backed majority took over in July that a board meeting was not marked by a 4-3 vote.

“I was not included nor asked for any input, and I encourage my colleagues to be inclusive and transparent so that all board members have input into this process,” McKenna said.

Melvoin said the involvement of other board members was limited because of the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

Kelly Gonez said she was not involved in the negotiations, and while she would like to be involved with a new task force on charters, she said she would give up any role so that members of the minority could participate.

“I am open to be involved, but it’s important that there be a diversity of voices,” Gonez said. “I welcome board members McKenna and Schmerelson who expressed a desire to be included. I would think that their having a seat at the table would be more important than mine.”

The other two members of the board majority are board President Monica Garcia, who was involved in the negotiations, and Ref Rodriguez, who was not. Rodriguez has been indicted on felony charges related to campaign finance violations and accused of violating conflict-of-interest laws. His allies on the board have called on him to take a leave of absence, but he has refused. He has pleaded not guilty to the felony charges.

Jose Cole-Gutierrez, who leads the district’s Charter Schools Division, said the talks provided charter schools additional clarity.

“We continued to listen, and we continued to respond. As our acting superintendent noted, we did make some changes, however those changes did not compromise our oversight public accountability standards or standards for student safety. We clarified some areas and we think that’s important, but I think at the core of this is we continued to listen.”

As part of the new language, charters do not have to agree to enter into one-year co-locations under Prop. 39, which governs how charter schools share district space. Charter leaders say this opens up the possibility of multi-year agreements that coincide with charter school petitions which must be renewed every five years.

The language was changed to “not close the door on the possibility of multi-year agreements,” Melvoin said.

Pack said he hopes specifically the district’s policy regarding Office of Inspector General will be reviewed in the future.

• Read more: 

Los Angeles parents show up in force to tell LAUSD to put kids first

Most charters were approved Tuesday, but here are the 3 that were turned down

Mike Szymanski contributed to this report.

Students at Alliance Alice M. Baxter College-Ready High School. (Courtesy: Alliance Facebook page)

Students at the majority of the charter schools that could be turned down Tuesday by LA Unified’s school board are performing academically above their peers in nearby schools.

But that’s not what Tuesday’s debate will likely be about.

State law says that student academic achievement is the most important factor in determining whether charter school renewals should be granted. For all but two of the 11 existing schools seeking renewal that are recommended for denial, the district staff didn’t make their decision based on academics.

Instead, the majority of the petitions are being denied because charter school leaders have not agreed to comply with certain district policies that LA Unified requires for charter schools. LA Unified says the compliance is needed to hold charter schools accountable, while charter leaders say the requirements exceed those laid out in state law and take time and energy away from the classroom.

• Read more: LA charter schools risk denials by LAUSD rather than accept ‘bureaucratic demands’

In total, 14 petitions are being recommended for denial. Of those, 11 are existing schools and three are new schools. Two existing schools are being recommended for denial on the basis of their academic performance. If a school is turned down by the school district, it can continue to operate if it is overturned on appeal by either the county or the state.

School board member Nick Melvoin has been working closely with the charter school leaders whose petitions are recommended for denial and who are looking for reforms to the district-required language.

Through a spokeswoman Monday, he said he remained “cautiously optimistic” that the district and charter leaders could work out their differences before Tuesday’s meeting.

An LA School Report analysis of the schools’ test scores and the district recommendations, which can be seen in this spreadsheet, shows:

• All eight of the schools in Los Angeles’ largest charter organization, Alliance College-Ready Public Schools, that are being recommended for denial meet the district’s minimum academic requirements for renewal petitions.

• Seven of the eight Alliance schools that are being recommended for denial have student test scores that are above their resident schools based on 2017 results. Kory Hunter Middle scored below resident schools in math on last year’s state standardized test scores. (Resident schools are LA Unified district schools in the area that students would otherwise attend based on their address.)

• North Valley Military Institute is one of two schools being recommended for denial on the grounds that it is not meeting minimum academic requirements. That school has not been involved in negotiations over district-required language, according to the California Charter Schools Association.

• Magnolia Science Academy 5 is also being recommended for denial based on academic performance. Magnolia 5 is below resident schools in English and math, according to LA Unified.

Magnolia CEO Caprice Young said in an interview Monday that Magnolia 5 has been at its current location for only three years, where it shares space on the campus of Reseda High. Its first location was in Hollywood. When the school moved, it started with a whole new student population. The school serves a large population of special education students — 20 percent, while the district average is 12.5 percent. Young said if LA Unified denies its petition and the county or the state grant an appeal, it will not be able to be part of the district’s special education services, which Young called a model program and beneficial for students.

Young said her students showed more growth on the standardized test scores taken last spring than surrounding schools.

“We’re hoping that either the superintendent will change the recommendation or the board members will overrule staff and approve our charter on the basis of the fact that they’ve only been open for three years and their test scores are equivalent to surrounding schools,” she said.

Magnolia’s other school that is up for renewal — Magnolia Science Academy 4 — is not being recommended for denial based on academics. Magnolia has been involved in the negotiations on district-required language.

STEM Prep and Equitas Academy 5 are new schools that are seeking permission to open in LA Unified, and the district has recommended denial for both of them. They are also involved in the negotiations over district-required language, according to CCSA.

A third school seeking to open, International Studies Language Academy, is also being recommended for denial but is not part of the debate over district-required language, according to CCSA.

One new school seeking to open, called PRIME, is recommended for approval.

Also on Monday, an attorney for United Teachers Los Angeles called on school board member Ref Rodriguez to recuse himself from the voting on the charter school petitions. Rodriguez has been indicted on felony campaign violations and has been accused of violating conflict of interest laws while he acted as treasurer of Partnership to Uplift Communities, a network of charter schools. UTLA’s reason cited the $75,000 donation of Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, who sits on the board of the KIPP Foundation, to Rodriguez’s legal defense fund. KIPP LA schools are on Tuesday’s agenda. UTLA also stated that Rodriguez should recuse himself because the deliberations involve the power of the Office of Inspector General to investigate charter schools, and PUC is under investigation.

Rodriguez’s political allies on the board — President Mónica García and board members Nick Melvoin and Kelly Gonez — have called on him to take a leave of absence from the board. Rodriguez said he would not. Together those four form a majority and were elected with financial backing from charter school supporters. If Rodriguez recused himself and board members voted along ideological lines, the votes would likely be 3 to 3.

In all, school board members will be asked to vote Tuesday on 34 charter school petitions. Of those, 18 existing schools and two new schools are recommended for approval, however, that includes six KIPP LA petitions — five existing schools and one new school. Marcia Aaron, KIPP LA’s CEO, has said she doesn’t agree with the benchmarks the district has required that KIPP meet as a condition of approval, so it is unclear what would happen if the board approves the petition with the benchmarks.

A KIPP spokesman said Monday that negotiations are still ongoing.

The main points of contention over the district-required language are:

• The district uses its Office of Inspector General to investigate charter schools. Charter leaders say how LA Unified uses its Inspector General’s office goes above and beyond what state law allows.

• LAUSD requires charter schools to apply for Prop. 39 co-locations every year, and charter leaders want to enter into five-year agreements to create some stability around sharing campuses with district schools.

• Charter leaders say they are expected to comply with all policies of the district, even those that are not in effect at the time their petition is approved, so they could be out of compliance with a policy that they didn’t even know about. They want the district to develop charter-specific policies.

• The district wants charter schools to agree to resolve disputes through mediation and binding arbitration rather than sue the district unless their petition is denied. Charter leaders say this denies them due process, while the district says it saves money.

By 2031, LA Unified will be spending half its budget on health care and pensions for retirees. Source: LA Unified

*UPDATED

Despite having laid out options to save money on health care, LA Unified has “rolled over” and agreed to continue funding its generous benefits for district employees, retirees, and their dependents at current levels for the next three years.

The district’s proposal was given late last week to union negotiators. The unions will respond to the district’s offer at its next bargaining session on Nov. 16. The school board must vote on any agreement before it becomes final. The two newest members of the board praised the proposal, even though one of them, Nick Melvoin, had called the district’s spiraling healthcare expenses a “crisis” during his campaign.

Pedro Noguera, an education professor at UCLA who facilitated two board retreats earlier this year to address the district’s looming budget deficits, said Wednesday that he told board members and Superintendent Michelle King that the district needed a strategic plan to align goals with their finances.

“In the absence of that kind of plan, it’s like they’re just waiting for things to get worse before they take action,” he said. “I think that’s not a good way to approach it because the only options at that point will be mass layoffs and closing schools.”

LA Unified’s healthcare benefits are among the most generous in the nation. Employees — and their dependents — pay no premiums and have lifetime benefits.

Last year, the district expanded healthcare offerings by extending benefits to teacher assistants and playground aides even though the agreement stated that it will help push district reserves into the red by half a billion dollars within two years.

The district already faces a $13.6 billion unfunded liability for healthcare benefits. Healthcare costs account for 15 percent of the district’s $7.5 billion budget.

The local teachers union, United Teachers Los Angeles, threatened to strike if health care was cut. After the first negotiating session, union leaders told members that the district was planning to slash their benefits. The four options that LA Unified proposed, according to UTLA, were cutting all dependents off health plans, cutting some dependents off health plans, not covering premiums, and forcing members into low-cost plans.

None of these cuts are in the new proposal, but the district has frozen spending.

Larry Sand, a retired LA Unified teacher, said in an email Tuesday that he pays a $5 co-pay for a doctor’s visit. He thinks co-pays should be raised and other adjustments should be made.

“I think UTLA was geared for a battle over health care, but the district indeed rolled over,” said Sand, who founded the California Teacher Empowerment Network, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that educates teachers and the public about union and school choice issues.

“Unfunded liability of $13.6 billion?! I’m not sure just what the board is thinking. It’s particularly egregious that the board allegedly has a ‘reformer’ majority. If the healthcare plan is what reform looks like, this bunch isn’t going to reform anything.”

The proposal was given last week when LA Unified negotiators and employee union officials met for their third bargaining session on healthcare benefits. The district is also negotiating a new contract with unions that includes salary provisions.

The negotiations come at a consequential time as the district faces a $422 million budget deficit in 2019-20.

In late August, district officials held a special meeting on healthcare benefits and the budget. Some school board members said then that they wanted changes to the healthcare benefits in order to reduce costs. The district’s financial staff told board members that by 2031, the district will be spending 50 percent of its budget on healthcare benefits and pensions for retirees.

Winter is not only coming to Westeros, to LAUSD, too. Check out slide 29 https://t.co/4NPs0WLi8T

— Andrew Rotherham (@arotherham) August 30, 2017

This should legit scare people. https://t.co/pCPEFMfBMK

— Benjamin Feinberg (@SchoolDataNerd) August 30, 2017

Acting Superintendent Vivian Ekchian sent a letter to all employees Friday giving them an update on the negotiations. She said the district’s proposal maintains a $1.1 billion annual contribution for health and welfare benefits for 2018, 2019, and 2020.

“This proposal would enable employees and retirees to continue receiving their current level of health coverage over the next three years,” she wrote. “While proposals do not become finalized until an agreement is reached, we look forward to working collaboratively with our labor partners to support our valued employees.”

UTLA, which represents district teachers and counselors, praised the district’s proposal in a statement on its website.

“On Thursday, Oct. 26, the district made significant movement on their initial proposal intended to gut our healthcare, and they are now willing to fund our healthcare at current levels for the next three years through 2020. This is a result of our growing solidarity with our labor partners, our school site organizing, our Sept. 26 #BigRedT and Oct. 11 #Picket4Power protests, and the fact that the district knows that we are willing to strike to achieve the priorities of the Schools LA Students Deserve campaign, which include protecting our healthcare and much more,” UTLA wrote.

United Teachers Los Angeles picket last month. (Source: UTLA)

“However, we see this as real progress and we have to keep the pressure up. We have the momentum but this is one battle of many for healthcare and the schools LA Students Deserve.”

Kelly Gonez, who along with Melvoin was elected to the school board in the spring, supported the district’s proposal.

“I believe the District’s proposal strikes the balance between being financially responsible and keeping the promises we’ve made to our hard-working employees,” Gonez said in an email. “As we look to the future, we will continue to seek solutions that are fair to our employees and maintain the level of care they deserve, while living within our fiscal realities. Though negotiations are ongoing and proposals evolve during the bargaining process, there is a great deal of common ground between the District and our labor partners.”

Melvoin called the district’s $13.6 billion unfunded liability for healthcare benefits a “crisis” on the campaign trail last spring, proposing that newly hired teachers receive more pay for less generous benefits. But this week he also praised the proposal.

“As a former LA Unified teacher, I’ve always been committed to ensuring that our hard-working employees receive the healthcare benefits that they deserve and that help us recruit the best teachers in the country,” Melvoin said in a statement. “At the same time, we saw at our board retreat on labor issues, that by 2031, 50% of District funds would be going to pension and healthcare costs instead of to classrooms and salaries. Not addressing this is unfair to our students and employees. The District’s current proposal — which maintains benefits through prior generous investment — is a big step in the right direction and was one of the recommendations of the Independent Financial Review Panel. Thoughtful solutions will be necessary if we’re to ensure the long-term success of our students, teachers, and all employees.”

The Independent Financial Review Panel, which was formed by former Superintendent Ramon Cortines, recommended two years ago that the district renegotiate its healthcare benefits agreement and freeze all healthcare spending for five years.

School board President Mónica García and school board member Richard Vladovic did not respond to requests for comment.

Katie Braude, who co-founded the parent advocacy organization Speak Up that worked to help elect Melvoin, said parents appreciate the district is taking a small step and freezing the contribution level.

“While we completely support the needs of our teachers to have excellent healthcare coverage, the current benefits package contributes to LAUSD’s enormous unfunded liability, and freezing the contribution level does not fix the problem,” she said in an email. “Our concern is that, as more public education dollars head outside the classroom, our kids will face huge class size increases, and fewer arts, technology, and other curriculum options that are critical for their futures. Parents expect Nick and the entire board to make the hard choices that put the interests of kids first.

“This is why parents need to have a seat at the table — no one else can represent the best interests of our kids.”

UPDATED: This story has been corrected. The unions have not agreed to the district’s proposal. 

Family fair at Crete Academy in July. (Source: Crete Academy)

The number of homeless students at LA Unified grew by 50 percent last year to 17,258 students — the highest number recorded by the district.

Because of that, you might think that LA Unified would be among the school districts in the state with the highest proportion of homeless students, but it doesn’t even crack the top 10.

Proportion is the keyword. While LA Unified has the largest number of homeless students of any school district in the state — and is the largest school district in the state — other school districts have a greater percentage of homeless students, as reported by EdSource in a special report on homeless students.

At LA Unified, 3.4 percent of the district’s students were homeless last year, according to district officials.

The district with the highest percentage of homeless students was Baker Valley Unified in San Bernardino County with 52 percent of its students reported being homeless in 2016, according to EdSource.

But the number of homeless students in LA Unified has more than doubled since the 2014-15 school year, when it was 6,090 students.

To explain why LA Unified has more homeless students, officials point to the increased number of homeless people in Los Angeles and nationally. They also point to a housing market crisis and the lack of affordable housing for low-income families.

Another reason for the increase is because LA Unified has doubled its staff who work with homeless from 14 to 29 people.

“We’re able to better more accurately identify students who are experiencing homelessness,” said Michelle Castelo Alferes, the district’s director of pupil services.

The board district with the highest percentage of homeless students is Board District 6 in the East San Fernando Valley, followed by the South Bay District 7, and then Board District 2 in downtown and East LA.

LA has the nation’s highest number of chronically homeless, defined as someone who has been homeless for a year or more. Homelessness in Los Angeles County grew by 23 percent last year, according to annual counts conducted by a county agency.

In New York City, home of the nation’s largest school district, 1 in 10 public school students are homeless, The New York Times recently reported.

But there could be more homeless students than LA Unified has identified. Some advocates say homeless data is flawed because families are ashamed to admit to school officials that they are experiencing homelessness.

“Homeless data is the most inaccurate data,” said Hattie Mitchell, founder of Crete Academy, a charter school that opened this year in South LA with a mission to serve homeless students.

Hattie Mitchell, co-founder and CEO, Crete Academy

At the beginning of the year, district families are asked to complete the district’s Student Residency Questionnaire. Students are considered homeless if they answer that they live in a shelter, a motel or hotel, car or RV, at a campsite, in transitional housing, or temporarily with another family.

“Families may be reluctant to identify,” Castelo Alferes said. “There may be a fear of being embarrassed or the fear of the stigma assigned to the label of being homeless.”

At Crete Academy, families are asked if they are homeless when they register for the school.

Mitchell said initially only five families at her school said they were homeless at the start of the school year. Now, two months later, she knows of 16 families who are experiencing homelessness.

“It’s only because we’ve really built trust that we’re able to find out this information, so if we would have just relied on paperwork alone we would have five kids who are homeless instead of 16,” she said. The school has 126 students enrolled.

Mitchell said she discovered one family was homeless after she called the student’s mother for a meeting after the child was exhibiting behavioral issues.”

“People are not ready and willing to share that information,” she said. “It comes after you’ve developed trust with parents.”

Mitchell helped place one family in a shelter who suddenly became homeless after they were evicted from their home. Private funders have given money to the school specifically for families who need hotel vouchers for a night.

LA Unified provides homeless students basic necessities that might be difficult for families who do not have secure housing to provide like backpacks, hygiene kits, and school supplies.

Homeless students also usually have high rates of absences from school, usually because families do not have easy access to transportation or because families are moving around a lot.

“(Families’) concern is basic needs and being able to find appropriate housing for their families for their children. School may be secondary,” Castelo Alferes said.

She encourages homeless families to seek additional resources from LA Unified.

“Whatever it is, the district is here to support them,” she said. “That’s the message we want to share with all families, particularly for this really high-risk, high-needs population that we’re here to support them and that we’re available.”

Antonio Villaraigosa and Delaine Eastin

Even though it’s eight months until next year’s primary election, the candidates hoping to be California’s next governor are starting to reveal their positions on education.

The key issues being discussed? Whether mayors should be given control of their local school boards, a moratorium on new charter schools, and more money for early childhood education.

Also, California Teachers Association announced its endorsement in the governor’s race last week.

• Former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said in an interview he believes in mayoral control for all California school districts.
• In a blog post on Medium, Delaine Eastin, former state superintendent of public instruction, called for a moratorium on new charter schools throughout the state.
• Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom has talked on the campaign trail about investing more money in early childhood education, as has state Treasurer John Chiang. Newsom has also talked about his opposition to for-profit charter schools and about holding charter schools more accountable for how they spend public money.
• Villaraigosa is the only candidate who would commit to reforming teacher tenure laws.
• CTA endorsed Newsom last week.

It’s no surprise that Eastin and Villaraigosa are especially vocal about education on the campaign trail. Both have said education was one of the top reasons they entered the race.

Eastin was elected the state’s top education official in 1994 and served through 2003.

In an interview with Capital Public Radio on Oct. 4, Villaraigosa said he believes California mayors should have control of their local school boards.

“I believe that because somebody’s got to be accountable,” Villaraigosa said. “When one person is ultimately accountable, then they get elected or defeated at the polls based on that accountability. What we have currently is a situation where, in too many of these cities, you’ve got seven people who aren’t accountable for success.”

As LA mayor, Villaraigosa attempted to take control of the LA Unified school board, as the mayor has in cities like Chicago and New York. The Legislature passed a bill, signed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that would have given him partial control, but the courts said the law was unconstitutional.

An editor’s note to the Capital Public Radio story notes that Villaraigosa has not yet committed to pushing for a new law to give mayors control of school districts, but he supports the idea and will reveal his education policy proposals later in the campaign.

Villaraigosa also supported the Vergara v. California lawsuit that challenged state laws regarding teacher tenure, dismissal, and layoffs. He said he believes that a process where teachers can receive tenure after two years isn’t long enough and that it’s too difficult to fire teachers.

“I just think the buck has to stop with the governor,” he said.

The Sacramento Bee also reported earlier this month on Villaraigosa’s relationship with unions, particularly the teachers union. The story quoted Gloria Marinez, an officer at United Teachers Los Angeles, who predicted the union would campaign against Villaraigosa with the message that he is “bad for public schools.”

“I don’t think teachers forget things that easily,” Martinez told the Sacramento Bee. “Here in LA, teachers are like, ‘Anybody but Villaraigosa.’”

Eastin, in a post published on Medium titled “California Needs a Moratorium on Charter Schools,” wrote: “Too many charters are escaping the rigorous financial oversight, auditing and reporting rules that are required of traditional public schools. They are also not open to all children — cherry picking the best and brightest students and even illegally turning away special education children. In some districts, this exclusivity, combined with aggressive expansion, is leaving vulnerable children in traditional public schools with inadequate resources.” She didn’t provide any examples.

By law, charter schools must accept all students and fill seats based on an open lottery. José Cole-Gutiérrez, who heads LA Unified’s Charter Schools Division, said recently that the number of complaints that charter schools are “creaming the crop” have gone down. LA has the largest number of charter schools in the country.

“The best charters accept all students, have dedicated teachers and strong instructional leaders as principals, open board meetings and minutes, as well as transparent financial reporting overseen by state-accredited auditors,” Eastin wrote.

Eastin served on the board of SIATech California Charter Schools, which operates charter high schools around the state.

She said charter schools have been “co-opted by multimillion-dollar industries.” She said she won’t accept any campaign contributions from state or national charter school organizations.

The education reform community and charter school supporters poured millions into the last statewide election in 2016, outspending teachers unions, and the LA Unified school board race this spring. In the past, teachers unions typically outspent charter school supporters.

California Teachers Association’s backing is also viewed as a key endorsement. CTA is one of Sacramento’s most powerful lobbyists.

Of the top four Democrats running for mayor, Eastin has raised the least amount of money: $321,000 compared to Newsom’s $13 million, who leads the pack in fundraising. Chiang has raised $6.8 million, and Villaraigosa has raised $5 million. John Cox is the fundraising leader on the Republican side with $3.2 million.

The top two vote-getters in the June primary will head to the November general election.

Gavin Newsom

Newsom, former mayor of San Francisco, who leads in polls as well as fundraising, talked about the platform he would adopt at the state Democratic Party’s annual convention in Sacramento in May and included priorities on education.

The Los Angeles Times reported ending childhood poverty in the state would be his “north star.” Newsom also called for the expansion of early childhood education, creating full-service community schools, and making community college free for all of the state’s students.

EdSource reported about Newsom’s comments three weeks ago at the K-12 Water Cooler gathering sponsored by the Advancement Project in Sacramento. Newsom said he was “vehemently against” private for-profit charter schools, and that more scrutiny is needed of how of the growing charter school sector is spending public funds.

“I am not ideologically opposed to charter schools, and there are some extraordinary charter schools out there,” Newsom said, according to EdSource. “But I am all about accountability and transparency. It is public money, and we need to be accountable for that.”

Chiang talked about education and more funding for early education at a panel at UC Berkeley.

According to the student newspaper, The Daily Californian, Chiang said: “If (you’re) investing in higher education, (you’re) too late. If you want to keep someone out of incarceration, you need to invest in early childhood education.”

John Chiang

Eastin supports state preschool, full-day kindergarten, and reducing tuition fees for the state’s public universities.

LA Mayor Eric Garcetti told the Sacramento Press Club that he is still deciding whether he’ll run for governor. Coverage of the event did not mention any talk about education. Garcetti has been criticized for taking a less active role in LA Unified school board politics than previous mayors.

Villaraigosa, Chiang, and Eastin attended a forum held by the California Charter Schools Association in March.

EdSource wrote about a debate the four candidates had on Tuesday where Villaraigosa was the only candidate who committed to reforming teacher tenure laws.

John Cox, a venture capitalist, and Travis Allen, an assemblyman from Orange County, are the two leading Republican candidates. Neither candidate has emphasized education so far on the campaign trail, according to reports.

However, in response, Rodriguez posted a statement on Twitter saying he would not do so.

“I am a dedicated public servant, and I have faith in the truth,” Rodriguez’s statement said in part. “I believe in the integrity of our justice system where I will respond to the allegations. In the interim, I wish to thank those who continue to believe that together, we can transform schools and communities.”

García’s office released a statement announcing the decision Tuesday following a closed session meeting at district headquarters. The board then went into a special “deep dive” meeting on the controversial topic of wanding and random searches for weapons that school officials conduct. Rodriguez attended the meeting even after the statement was released.

“We serve the people of Greater Los Angeles because we believe there is a better path for the children of our great district,” the statement from the three board members said. “Unfortunately, the serious allegations against Dr. Ref Rodriguez distract from that critical mission. Nobody should be tried in the press or the court of public opinion without having a fair hearing. But in order to keep making progress towards our goal of 100% graduation, we have asked Dr. Rodriguez to take a leave of absence from the Board. As with any employee of the district who is accused of misconduct, this allows for a quicker resolution while enabling the District to continue its work.”

I will continue my life’s work to improve educational opportunities for all students pic.twitter.com/Hhax0vyQ2r

— Dr. Ref Rodriguez (@DrRefRodriguez) October 24, 2017

Rodriguez appeared in criminal court earlier Tuesday and pleaded not guilty to the felony and misdemeanor charges he faces. His attorney said he “vehemently” denies any wrongdoing.

Previously, García and other board members have declined to publicly discuss the charges against Rodriguez.

Ref Rodriguez at a special board meeting on Tuesday.

Rodriguez is part of the pro-reform majority of the school board that came into existence after Gonez and Melvoin won their elections this spring. He was chosen board president by his colleagues in July but stepped down from the position after the charges were announced last month. His attorney told reporters after his court appearance that he would remain serving on the school board.

The other school board members George McKenna, Scott Schmerelson and Richard Vladovic were not part of the statement, but they did attend the meeting Tuesday.

Prosecutors say during his 2015 successful bid for school board, Rodriguez illegally reimbursed 25 people — mostly family and friends — who gave money to his campaign. The reimbursements totaled about $25,000. Rodriguez then signed campaign finance documents saying the campaign donors were legitimate.

The charges against Rodriguez are three felony counts of perjury, procuring and offering a false or forged instrument and conspiracy to commit assumed name contribution and 25 misdemeanor counts of assumed name contribution for each of the donations that he reimbursed. His cousin Elizabeth Tinajero Melendrez is also charged. She pleaded not guilty.

Partnerships to Uplift Communities, the charter school network Rodriguez co-founded, also filed a conflict of interest complaint against Rodriguez saying he authorized about $285,000 in payments from PUC to non-profit organizations he oversaw. The state’s Fair Political Practices Commission closed the complaint Friday without prejudice citing the ongoing criminal investigation but it could reopen the matter after the criminal case is adjudicated.

*UPDATED This story has been updated with a statement from Rodriguez.

Ref Rodriguez

LA Unified school board member Ref Rodriguez pleaded not guilty Tuesday to felony and misdemeanor charges related to an alleged political money laundering scheme during his 2015 election.

Appearing in Los Angeles criminal court, Rodriguez surrendered his passport as a condition of his continued release. He is due back in court Dec. 13 along with his cousin, Elizabeth Tinajero Melendrez, who is also charged in the alleged money laundering and also pleaded not guilty Tuesday.

Prosecutors say during his 2015 successful bid for school board, Rodriguez illegally reimbursed 25 people — mostly family and friends — who gave money to his campaign. The reimbursements totaled about $25,000. Rodriguez then signed campaign finance documents saying the campaign donors were legitimate.

Rodriguez’s attorney Daniel Nixon spoke to reporters after the brief hearing, saying his client “vehemently” denies any wrongdoing and will not be stepping down from the school board. Rodriguez resigned his position as board president in wake of the criminal charges.

“Dr. Rodriguez denies any wrongdoing and has really had one purpose as a school board member and as an advocate in the public school system and that is to work for the children of this community to ensure that there is equal opportunity and quality education available to all,” Nixon said. “That’s been his calling and that’s what he’s done over the last 20 years,”

Rodriguez has declined to speak publicly about the charges. He faces three felony counts of perjury, procuring and offering a false or forged instrument and conspiracy to commit assumed name contribution and 25 misdemeanor counts of assumed name contribution for each of the donations that he reimbursed.

The charges were filed by the LA County District Attorney’s Office last month. If convicted, Rodriguez faces up to four years and four months in jail. The charges grew out of an investigation by the city Ethics Commission following a whistleblower complaint.

Rodriguez, who represents northeast Los Angeles and the cities of Maywood, Vernon, Cudahy, South Gate and Huntington Park, was elected board president by his colleagues in July after the spring election that saw a shift in the board’s ideological makeup to a pro-reform majority.

Rodriguez pledged he would put “Kid’s First” as president — a role that gave him authority to set meeting agendas and often cast him as the board’s public face. After the charges were filed, he stepped down as president but by staying on the board, he remains an important member for the reform majority. Teacher union UTLA has called for his resignation from the board.

On Friday, the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission said it closed a conflict of interest complaint that Partnerships to Uplift Communities filed against Rodriguez, who co-founded the charter network. PUC said in the complaint that Rodriguez authorized about $285,000 in payments from PUC to non-profit organizations he oversaw. An attorney for PUC said they could not verify if any services were provided in exchange for the payments.

The FPPC closed the case without prejudice, citing the ongoing criminal investigation but it could reopen the case after the criminal case is completed.

Nixon said he was still reviewing the allegations made by PUC, but Rodriguez also denies wrongdoing in that matter. PUC has also referred its findings to LA Unified, which oversees the charter school network.

Rodriguez co-founded PUC in 1998. He left the network, which operates 17 charter schools in northeast LA, the northeast San Fernando Valley and New York, after he was elected in 2015.

Even after you take out gifted magnet programs where students have to meet academic admissions requirements, students at LA Unified’s magnet schools outperformed their peers at independent charter schools, an LA School Report analysis of district data found.

The district released its own analysis last week of this year’s state standardized test scores, showing that for the third year in a row, student performance at magnets topped those at charters, all LA Unified schools, and the state average. The results are from the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress tests, which are also known as Smarter Balanced Assessments or SBACs. The tests were taken last spring by students in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11. The scores were released by the state last month.

LA School Report took the district’s analysis and separated the 44 magnet programs or schools where students have to meet minimum academic requirements, known as gifted or highly gifted magnets.

On the English language arts portion of the test, 80 percent of students at gifted magnets met or exceeded standards. They were followed by students at all magnets with 60 percent, the state average of 49 percent, LA’s independent charter schools who scored 46 percent, and lastly the average for all LA Unified students, which was 40 percent.

In math, 68 percent of students at gifted magnets met or exceeded standards. At all magnets, 48 percent of students met or exceeded standards, followed by the state average of 38 percent, 31 percent for LA charter schools, and 30 percent for all LA Unified students.

Separating out the gifted magnets, students at the district’s 171 non-selective magnets still outpaced state averages and charters. In English language arts, 59 percent of students at the non-selective magnets met or exceeded standards and 41 percent did so in math.

“We are pleased that so many of our students have attained proficiency as we prepare them to succeed in a challenging and diverse world,” Acting Superintendent Vivian Ekchian said in a news release. “Our focus remains on working together to support learning and achievement so that all of our students will graduate with the skills and knowledge demanded of the next generation of leaders.”

Diverse school models provide a way to reach all students, data shows innovation working, but we have a lng way to go & a lot of wrk to do. https://t.co/Zi7lYlItBN

— Nick Melvoin (@nickmelvoin) October 19, 2017

Now in the third year of the tests, after a year of growth, results for students statewide stalled. LA Unified students — in magnets, affiliated charter schools and traditional schools — showed some improvement, about 1 percentage point in ELA and 2 percentage points in math.

(Source: LA Unified)

There are 225 magnets schools and centers in LA Unified. Magnets, which can be an entire school or a program within a school, are specialized based on specific themes like Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math, known as STEM, performing arts, or business. Magnets are open to all students, but they must apply and admission is based on a points system. Points are earned based on race, as the magnets were originally created in the late 1970s and early ’80s to help integration efforts. There are other factors also, such as if the student’s home school is overcrowded and if a student has applied to a magnet before and didn’t get in.

Some magnets are for gifted students and have minimum academic requirements to get in.

Magnets are viewed by many in the district as a key to reversing LA Unified’s steady enrollment decline as charter schools have grown, the birth rate has declined, and families have left Los Angeles as housing costs have skyrocketed.

(Source: LA Unified)

The California Charter Schools Association released a statement after the release of the state standardized test scores pointing out that charter school outperformed traditional LA Unified schools.

“While there is clearly more work to be done, it’s gratifying to see the hard work of LA’s charter schools paying off for some of our most vulnerable students,” spokesman Richard Garcia said in a statement.

The CCSA noted LA’s top performing middle schools were charter schools: Alfred B. Nobel Charter Middle, which is an affiliated charter school that also has a science, technology and math magnet on campus, Renaissance Arts Academy, KIPP Los Angeles College Preparatory, Paul Revere Charter Middle, and New West Charter.

Average Point Difference is a measure that compares a school’s SBAC scale scores by grade to the state standard for “met.” (Source: California Charter Schools Association)

Here are some demographic differences when you compare magnets, charter schools, and traditional district schools:

• Magnets had fewer economically disadvantaged students compared to charters and traditional schools.
• Magnets had the highest percentage of African-American students and lowest percentage of Latino students compared to charters and traditional schools.
• Charters had the lowest percentage of white and Asian students.
• Magnets had a lower percentage of students with disabilities and English learners compared to charters and traditional schools.

Here are some findings in the district’s comparison among magnets, charters, and district schools:

• The achievement gap persisted at all schools: African-American students had the lowest scores, followed by Latino students, while Asian students had the highest scores followed by white students.
• Students at magnets who are economically disadvantaged scored higher than their peers at traditional schools and charter schools.
• Scores for English language learners at charter schools were higher than at traditional schools and magnets.
• A higher percentage of reclassified English learners at magnets met or exceeded standards compared to traditional schools and charters.
• Students with disabilities at magnet schools scored higher than at traditional and charter schools.
• African-American students at charter schools scored lower in math than African-American students at traditional schools.
• Economically disadvantaged students at traditional schools made higher gains compared to last year than their peers at magnet schools.
• When looking at results by grade level, magnets outscored charters and traditional schools in all grades in English and math. Charters outscored traditional schools in all grades except sixth grade in English and math and in seventh-grade math.
• In charter schools, the grade level with the biggest gains in math compared to last year was eighth grade with a 3 percentage point increase.
• In magnets schools, the grade level that made the biggest gains in math was third grade with a 3 percentage point increase.

School board member Ref Rodriguez at a committee meeting last week at Fairfax High.

A conflict of interest complaint alleging that Los Angeles school board member Ref Rodriguez improperly directed $285,000 from the charter school network he co-founded to various non-profits he oversaw has been closed.

The state’s Fair Political Practices Commission sent a letter Friday to Rodriguez’s attorney saying it was closing the complaint brought by Partnerships to Uplift Communities for the time being. The commission cited the pending criminal case against Rodriguez involving allegedly bogus contributions to his 2015 school board campaign.

“In light of Mr. Rodriguez’s criminal indictment in Los Angeles County, the Commission is closing this matter without prejudice,” wrote Galena West, the Enforcement Division chief.

It appears that the FPPC commonly will close complaints if there is an ongoing criminal investigation. It doesn’t preclude the state political watchdog agency from reopening the case down the road.

But Rodriguez’s attorney Jim Sutton said in an email he thinks the commission acted because it did not find any substance to the complaint.

“The FPPC clearly does not believe that the allegations in the complaint warrant an investigation,” Sutton said. “Although the FPPC typically defers to local DAs when the DA is looking at the same or similar allegations, the complaint here is completely unrelated to the criminal case. The FPPC often tells respondents that it has put an investigation ‘on hold’ pending a criminal case; here, it didn’t even think the situation warranted doing that.”

An FPPC spokesman said he could not comment directly on Rodriguez’s case.

“I can say generally speaking FPPC Enforcement Division routinely works with and consults with other agencies to determine the best course of action for all investigations and cases involved to try to achieve the best outcome for justice for the people,” Jay Wierenga said in an email.

The District Attorney’s Office charged Rodriguez last month with three felonies and 25 misdemeanors related to a political money laundering scheme in which prosecutors allege Rodriguez illegally reimbursed campaign donors some $25,000. Most of the donors were family and friends and Rodriguez’s cousin, a campaign volunteer, was also charged. Rodriguez signed campaign finance documents attesting that the contributions were legitimate.

The charges are felony perjury, procuring and offering a false or forged instrument and conspiracy to commit assumed name contribution and 25 misdemeanor counts of assumed name contribution.

The criminal charges grew out of an investigation by the city Ethics Commission into Rodriguez’s campaign finances during his 2015 bid for the school board.

In the conflict of interest complaint filed 10 days ago with the FPPC, the charter school network said Rodriguez approved nearly $285,000 in unauthorized payments from the Partnerships to Uplift Communities to non-profit organizations he oversaw. Rodriguez made the requests for payments and signed the checks, according to the documents.

“Ref Rodriguez participated in several transactions in his official capacity which he had a personal financial interest,” the complaint states.

PUC officials did not respond to a request for comment.

In the criminal case, Rodriguez is expected to be arraigned in downtown criminal court on Tuesday. In his last court appearance, the arraignment was delayed and Rodriguez and his cousin, Elizabeth Melendrez, were released on their own recognizance.

Rodriguez declined to comment on the FPPC letter and has not discussed the criminal allegations publicly.

*UPDATED This story has been updated with comment from the FPPC.

Ref Rodriguez during his 2015 campaign.

Partnerships to Uplift Communities, the charter school network co-founded by school board member Ref Rodriguez, released 109 pages of documents Wednesday relating to its conflict-of-interest complaint filed against Rodriguez.

PUC alleges that Rodriguez illegally authorized $285,000 in payments to nonprofit organizations he oversaw during his tenure at PUC, as first reported Monday by the Los Angeles Times.

One of the striking things about the 16 checks released Wednesday and the accompanying documents is that Rodriguez both requested the funds and signed the checks (sometimes with fellow PUC co-founder Jacqueline Elliot’s signature). Also, the turnaround time for receiving the funds was immediate. The checks were signed on the same day the requests for payment were made.

Here are links to the documents and what they cover:

The complaint:

PUC filed a three-page complaint Friday to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which investigates conflict of interest complaints against public officials, as well as campaign finance and ethics violations.

“Ref Rodriguez participated in several transactions in his official capacity which he had a personal financial interest,” the complaint states. It then goes on to detail several transactions that Rodriguez authorized and signed on behalf of PUC to Partners Developing Futures, a nonprofit organization Rodriguez headed as CEO.

The requests for payment:

PUC released Fundraising Check Request forms where Ref Rodriguez requested payments on behalf of Partners Developing Futures and Better 4 You Fundraising.  It appears that Rodriguez also had a financial interest inBetter 4 You Fundraising, according to PUC.

The documents also include copies of checks and invoices.

Here are links to records for March 10, 2014, May 15, 2014, May 30, 2014, June 2, 2014, June 3, 2014, another June 3, 2014, and Oct. 3, 2014.

The checks:

The 14 checks to Partners Developing Futures were made between May 30 through Oct. 3, 2014, and total $265,629.86.

Rodriguez also requested payments and authorized checks to Better 4 You Fundraising paid from PUC.

Those two checks were issued March 10 through May 15, 2014, and total $20,400.

That’s a total of $286,029.86 that PUC is alleging Rodriguez had a conflict of interest in authorizing. PUC is an independent charter school, which receives public funds to operate.

PUC also said in its complaint that it believes LA Unified paid $27,000 to PUC for services related to Partners Developing Futures.

What were the funds for?

PUC had signed an agreement with Partners Developing Futures to develop a LEAD program, which would provide mentoring, training, and professional development for emerging school leaders who were persons of color. The agreement was signed in 2014. The payments were “ostensibly” for reimbursements related to consulting for this program, according to the complaint. But an attorney representing PUC told the LA Times there is little or no evidence any services were given.

Here is a copy of the agreement signed between PUC and PDF. Rodriguez signed on behalf of PDF, while Elliot signed on behalf of PUC.

Here is a copy of the agreement Rodriguez signed on behalf of PUC and PDF with LA Unified. It is dated Dec. 5, 2014.

Rodriguez was PUC’s treasurer at the time of the payments in question. PUC released a timeline of Rodriguez’s employment at PUC since 2008.

PUC also released copies of 990s, federal tax filings for nonprofit organizations, filed by Partners Developing Futures in 2011 and 2012 that list Rodriguez as the organization’s CEO. Rodriguez earned a $180,000 salary in 2011 and $140,000 in 2012 from PDF.

Rodriguez has also been charged by the LA County District Attorney’s Office with three felony counts and 25 misdemeanor counts related to an alleged political money laundering scheme during his 2015 bid for school board. Following an investigation by the City Ethics Commission, prosecutors say Rodriguez, with the help of his cousin and campaign volunteer, reimbursed campaign donors $25,000 while signing documents that said the donations he reimbursed were legitimate.

Rodriguez is scheduled to appear in court on Tuesday to be arraigned. He has not yet entered a plea.

Rodriguez briefly appeared in court on the day the charges were filed but was released on his own recognizance. He is expected to appear Tuesday with his attorney.

Shockwaves reverberated through the Los Angeles education community last month when the LA County District Attorney filed charges against LA Unified school board President Ref Rodriguez alleging he engaged in political money laundering during his election two years ago.

New allegations were revealed Monday when the Los Angeles Times published a report saying that the charter school network that Rodriguez co-founded, Partnership to Uplift Communities, had filed a conflict of interest complaint against Rodriguez saying he wrongly authorized $285,000 in payments to a nonprofit organization he led.

The new allegations come as Rodriguez is facing increasing pressure to resign his board position. Rodriguez stepped down last month from his role as board president, but he remains a voting member of the board. If he resigns, it would deal a blow to the pro-reform majority that was achieved with the board elections this spring.

Let’s review what Rodriguez is facing and what comes next.

1. RECAP OF LAST MONTH’S CRIMINAL CHARGES

Following a whistleblower complaint and investigation by the City Ethics Commission, the District Attorney’s Office filed charges on Sept. 13, including three felony counts of perjury, procuring and offering a false or forged instrument, and conspiracy to commit assumed name contribution, and 25 misdemeanor counts of assumed name contribution, against Rodriguez. Prosecutors say Rodriguez reimbursed 25 campaign donors — most of whom were family and friends — $25,000 of his own money. But Rodriguez signed campaign finance documents under penalties of perjury stating that those donors had given him the money.

Rodriguez’s cousin, Elizabeth Tinajero Melendrez, was also charged in the scheme. The Los Angeles Times reported that she resigned from her position as a senior manager at PUC on Friday.

The case has puzzled campaign finance experts because there is no limit to what a candidate can give to his own campaign. Some observers say Rodriguez likely wanted to give the appearance that his campaign had grassroots support early on in the election. Many of the donors were janitors and workers at PUC, the charter school network Rodriguez co-founded. KPPC published a report during the 2015 election noting how janitors and other low-level workers were donating $1,100 to Rodriguez’s campaign. At the time Rodriguez said the donors would not be reimbursed.

The ethics commission staff found that nearly half of the campaign contributions made over a 22-day period in December 2014 were allegedly fraudulent because Melendrez and Rodriguez reimbursed them. The findings were referred to the District Attorney’s Office, and that led to the filing of criminal charges against both defendants.

Prosecutors said in December 2014 Rodriguez cashed out a $26,000 business investment and then gave that money to Melendrez with instructions to reimburse 25 campaign donors.

2. LAUSD DECLINES TO REVEAL IF IT IS CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION 

In response to a Public Records Act request filed by LA School Report for any communications the district has received from the District Attorney’s Office about the case, including any subpoenas or search warrants, LA Unified’s legal team denied the request citing an exemption due to “records of a confidential ongoing investigation.” The district has not responded to follow-up questions about whether the district is conducting its own investigation.

Rodriguez has declined to speak publicly about the charges. In a statement after the charges were filed, Rodriguez said he had been working with the Ethics Commission for two years to “resolve these issues.”

Rodriguez has not denied the allegations. In a statement, his lawyer, Daniel Nixon, said: “As I understand it, candidates fund their campaigns often. I think it’s a question of simply the details, the nuances, concerning how that takes place.”

3. CHARTER GROUP FILES A COMPLAINT

In a separate case, reported Monday in the Los Angeles Times, Partnership to Uplift Communities filed a complaint Friday with the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that Rodriguez authorized $285,000 in payments to a nonprofit organization he ran.

There is little or no evidence that the charter group received any services, and PUC’s records indicate that Rodriguez both authorized and signed the checks. He was also serving as PUC’s chief financial officer during much of the period in which the checks were being written, according to the LA Times. 

The FPPC said it cannot release the complaint until five days after it has received it per its regulations.

A spokeswoman for PUC declined to release the complaint but sent a statement from its board chairman, Manuel Ponce Jr.

“Due to the ongoing investigations, PUC Schools has no comment at this time about the Fair Political Practices Commission filing. Our focus on our amazing families, teachers and staff is steadfast, as is our commitment to providing all of our students with the quality public education they deserve,” the statement said.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, who has given millions to elect charter school supporters to the state Legislature and local school boards, donated $75,000 to a legal defense fund that Rodriguez set up, KPPC reported Tuesday.

4. RODRIGUEZ IS EXPECTED AT COURT NEXT TUESDAY

Rodriguez is scheduled to appear in court on Tuesday to be arraigned. He has not yet entered a plea.

Rodriguez briefly appeared in court on the day the charges were filed but was released on his own recognizance. He is expected to appear Tuesday with his attorney.

5. NO COMMENT FROM RODRIGUEZ AT TUESDAY’S SCHOOL BOARD MEETING 

All eyes were on Tuesday’s school board committee meeting at Fairfax High School. Rodriguez attended but declined to speak to reporters. Last month, when Rodriguez announced he was resigning as board president, it was just before a committee meeting began. He announced it on both his Twitter and Facebook pages.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the four other board members present each declined to comment on the charges against Rodriguez. Two board members, Richard Vladovic and George McKenna, did not attend, after vowing last week to boycott the meeting because they felt removed from decision-making. They did not respond to requests for comment about Rodriguez.

The meeting ended just after 5 p.m., and while seven speakers had signed up to address the board during public comment, by the time it came to speak, only about 10 people were left in the audience — but none of the speakers.

6. NO RECALL PETITION HAS BEEN FILED

United Teachers Los Angeles, the local teachers union, has been a vocal critic of Rodriguez’s decision to remain on the board. It has called on him to step down.

But so far no recall petitions have been filed against Rodriguez, according to the City Clerk’s Office.

A recall petition must receive signatures from 15 percent of the registered voters in a district. For District 5 — which includes Highland Park and Eagle Rock and the cities of Huntington Park, Vernon, and Maywood — that would be about 45,000 signatures. The signatures must be gathered within 120 days.

The signatures must be verified and if determined sufficient, a recall election will be held.

Mike Szymanski contributed to this report.

*This article now includes updates from Tuesday’s committee meeting.