More than a third of Disruptive Parent Letters were issued in the West Local District last year.

A mother came to board member Monica Ratliff’s office in tears recently because her daughter was doing an end-of-year dance performance, but she thought she couldn’t attend because she got a “Disruptive Parent Letter” and was told she was banned from the school.

“She was told you’re not allowed on campus. I think the messaging is not necessarily consistent in terms of what the messaging actually is,” Ratliff said at the June 2 Early Childhood Education and Parent Engagement Committee meeting. “I want our schools safe and secure, but some parents get a Disruptive Parent Letter and that may not be the best way to handle an irate parent.”

Three leading parent groups involved with LA Unified are asking for an appeals process and better monitoring of the issuance of Disruptive Parent Letters, which are used to limit access to community members who have created chaotic situations at schools.

Over the past year, 304 letters have been issued to parents or guardians of children for creating disruptions at schools, according to the district. For the three years before that a total of 486 letters were issued, according to a public records request by parents. Part of the problem has been finding a central way of monitoring the letters, but now the district is using iSTAR Incident System Tracking Accountability Report and has a better way of tracking the data. The letters are in five languages: English, Spanish, Armenian, Chinese and Vietnamese.

“Is there a burst of letters [being issued] or is there a more robust data collection system?” asked Rachel Greene, chairwoman of the Parent Advisory Committee who also sits as an external representative on the board’s Early Childhood committee. “Some parents have contacted us because they were issued the letters and it was being done in the wrong way or possibly for the wrong reasons.”

Christopher Ortiz, director of School Operations, said the district has a legal right to issue the letters if the parent is not deprived of educational rights and has been disruptive, for example, by yelling obscene statements at school.

“The parent is not banned unless there is extremely egregious behavior or threatening, and generally we can make arrangements,” Ortiz said. Ultimately, with more than 1.5 million registered parents and guardians at LA Unified, only 304 Disruptive Parent Letters seems small, he said.

“It’s a very small number of letters if you look at it from a statistical lens,” Ortiz said. “But we can see where we can improve the process.”

Mary Daisy Ortiz said she has “plenty” of Disruptive Parent Letters and they are being misused.

Mary Daisy Ortiz, who is on the Parent Advisory Committee that is asking for a review of the letters, said through an interpreter, “If you want to study these letters, just ask me, I have plenty of these letters. Believe me, there are plenty of injustices being done to parents and students.”

Ortiz added that she thinks the letters are used to stifle parents who are outspoken and said, “Parents do not feel welcome at certain schools, so they go to charters where for the most part there is no parent involvement, but they produce results.”

Diana Guillen, secretary of the District English Learner Advisory Committee, asked, “What does it mean to cause a problem in the school? It just means when I try to assert my rights, so I’m being disruptive. There should also be an accounting of the principals who issue those letters and abuse the privilege.”

In the only detailed data of the letters, the report shows more than one-third, or 117 letters, are issued in the West Local District while the fewest are issued in the Northwest Local District, where there were only 21 letters sent out over the last year.

Christopher Ortiz and Katrina Campbell of LAUSD explain the Disruptive Parent Letter procedures.

“I would like to see what the situations were with the 40 that were issued in my area,” Ratliff said. “Screaming in the main office is a problem, and there are some concerns for the safety of students, but it makes me wonder what these incidents were like.”

Ratliff added, “People get frustrated and act inappropriately but that shouldn’t always trigger a Disruptive Parent Letter.”

Ratliff was also concerned that there is no appeals process. She said, “It’s problematic that they do not have an appeal, where do they go?”

Ortiz, from the district office handling the letters, said, “We’re not under an obligation as a district to provide an appeals process.” He did, however, say that his office would look into the feasibility of appeals to the letters.

Katrina Campbell of the district’s Office of General Counsel said, “It’s usually a series of incidents and a last resort when the letter is issued for disruptive behavior.” She said there are provisions in the state Educational Code and the penal code that allow restrictions to campus, and most administrators call the district’s attorneys before issuing a letter.

“We try to resolve the matter first and get the parent to understand that the parent is being disruptive to the school environment and that the letter is not a knee-jerk reaction,” Campbell said. “Some teachers resort to police to control the parent.”

The letters do not restrict access to the school, but ask that the parent call the principal to let them know they are coming to the school, so the school could contact school police if necessary, Campbell said.

But there’s concern about misuse of the policy. Lester Garcia, of SEIU Local 99, said, “This should be used as a shield, not a sword, there’s a big difference. We need to look at the schools or administrators that are overusing these.”

Juan Mangandi of the District English Learner Advisory Committee said, “This tries to limit the voice of the parents.”

As a parent, Greene said, “I am aware of a situation at a school where I was glad to hear that—however it was done—that person wasn’t going to continue to be around again.”

But she said that an appeals process would be fair to those who get the letters. “It is a good sign that it is a relatively small number, but within this there is group of parents who feel the opposite it being a welcoming environment.”

The parent recommendations will be brought to the superintendent’s office and the full school board at a future meeting for discussion and a possible vote.

Rachel Greene

Leaders from major parent groups brought school board members their recommendations for improving parent involvement in LA Unified.

Topping their list is a centralized Parent Advocate office and website for their concerns, they told board members of the Early Childhood Education and Parent Engagement Committee on Tuesday. Other  recommendations include involving parents in every principal search committee and providing resources and training.

One simple thing for the district to do is apologize to parents. “Apologizing for mistakes is actually evidence-based and reduces litigation,” said Kathy Kantner, a member of the Community Advisory Committee who spoke Tuesday.

School board member Ref Rodriguez, the committee’s chairman, said, “I’m very excited about this report, this is something we’ve been building up to.”

The biggest problem for parents is trying to figure out how to address grievances because there are so many avenues when dealing with the district’s downtown Beaudry headquarters. The various parent groups formed a study group that spanned all of the Local Districts and came up with suggestions, including:

• Establish an Office of the Parent Advocate with a website and telephone helpline that the parents suggest could be funded by the mayor’s office or LA County Office of Education.

• Hire and train administrators to be service leaders who have positive attitudes toward parental involvement in schools.

• Continue working to engage “everyday parents” but acknowledge and appreciate parent leaders, and perhaps designate them as Parent Ambassadors with different-colored volunteer badges.

• Share power in major decision making, budgets and other committees.

• Provide resources and training to parents when they are on campus at new family orientations, open houses and other events.

• Improve the handling of the use of Disruptive Persons Letters which the district gives to parents who create problems on campus and have their access to the school limited.

“We all know there are people who are struggling with mental issues and substance abuse, but too often these DPLs are given because of a power struggle with parents,” said  Kantner.

There were 486 DPLs handed out to parents in the last three years. Some parents get issued such a letter without being able to tell their side of the story, Kantner said.

“Our biggest ask is for the Office of Parent Advocate,” Kantner said. “We are in a position of growth and improvement with the district, by the very fact that we are having this discussion.”

She pointed out, “If I’m a parent and have a problem, it’s really hard to figure out where to go.”

Rachel Greene, of the Parent Advisory Committee, also presented the report.

Juan Jose Mangandi from the District English Learner Advisory Committee said through a translator, “It is time for parents to be critical and see what we lack for our children in education. We must change the attitude of coldness of education by people who see it as a business and not as a mission.”

Some parents mentioned former Superintendent John Deasy as creating some of the problems with parental engagement. “For Deasy engagement was not his strength,” said  Araceli Simeon of Parent Organizing Network. “We saw how he engaged parents, board members … and that had an effect. The leader sets the tone for the rest of the structure.”

Board member Scott Schmerelson said that when he was a principal he felt most problems could be solved at his level, and he resented when parents went over his head. “Most issues can be solved right at the site,” he said.

Kantner said she had once been told to stop calling people at the Beaudry headquarters. “When an issue wasn’t resolved it seems like our concerns were shunted aside,” Kantner said.

Juan Molinez, another parent who spoke during the public comment period, said he is concerned about parental involvement in the district because “especially the low-income families have a lot of outrage.” He said the meetings are not enough. “The voices of other parents are not being heard. Parental involvement is free, and we can help so much more.”

“It is important that the district has done so much to engage with parents, but we have a long way to go,” Rodriguez said. “Only through working together can we get there.”

Rodriguez asked for another report at his next meeting to determine whether to go before the full board for specific actions.

Maria Daisy Ortiz complains about parent involvement with LAUSD.

Parents representing some of the most important advisory committees to the LA Unified school board lodged a litany of complaints this week about a lack of connection with the district.

Long distances to meetings, inconvenient times, police intimidation near meeting sites and a lack of consideration of the parents’ advice were some of the complaints brought up in more than an hour of public comment at the Early Childhood and Parent Engagement Committee Tuesday. The parents said they often felt their advisory committees were held merely to comply with some legislative requirement and that the ideas they advised went nowhere, adding to the difficulty of getting parents to volunteer for the committees.

The three school board members listening to the complaints seemed surprised and dismayed and said the parents’ issues would be addressed. The parents had been invited to Tuesday’s meeting by committee chair Ref Rodriguez, who had asked to hear their concerns.

Some of the dozen speakers were community leaders and officers of major advisory committees to the school board. The Parent Advisory Committee, for example, has 47 parents who meet monthly downtown and come from all over the district, said Chairwoman Rachel Greene.

Rachel Greene, chairwoman of the Parent Advisory Committee

“We have people coming from Porter Ranch and San Pedro so it is difficult for some to get to the Central Area.  But there are there are pros and cons for meeting centrally there are certain record-keeping requirements for [the Parent, Community and Social Services] to comply with that can be accomplished more easily there.  And they do provide food and beverage for members there.  If they start moving to Porter Ranch, the people from San Pedro will have something to say about it, and vice versa. But having some moving around is something to consider.  Having a joint meeting with some of the other committees so we could hear others’ input could be good but could also be a burden. But as Mr. Mangandi mentioned, the lack of childcare is a problem.”

She said the parents who attend the meetings “were usually at some point stymied by LAUSD, or something went wrong with the district or their school down the street or the one that our children take hours to ride buses to get to. We want to work with you, I don’t think there is any other group of human beings who want to see this district succeed as much as we do.”

Some LAUSD staff members said they were looking into improvements of districtwide parent meetings and looking for alternatives, but the parent leaders said it is not enough.

“Many parents are not in agreement that parent participation is improving,” said Diana Guillen, the secretary of the District English Learner Advisory Committee and a member of the Parent Advisory Committee for four years. She pointed to the audience behind her and said, “You can see behind me there are less than 10 parents here.”

Guillen echoed complaints that the meeting locations are held at inconvenient times, inconvenient places and provide no childcare.

“I can’t afford childcare, I have to bring my child,” Guillen said. “We deserve to be humanized. I consider this a personal insult.”

LA Unified has $4.6 million budgeted for parent participation. At one point, some of that money was used to reimburse people who paid for childcare, but that was stopped when the budget crisis hit in 2008, said Rowena LaGrosa, chief executive officer of Parent, Community and Student Services for LAUSD. No childcare was ever provided on site for children younger than 5, and liability issues and lack of space also ended providing childcare for people attending the parent meetings.

“We as parents would like to have more power and not just push the agenda of administrators, we would like to implement our own agendas,” Guillen said.

DELAC chairman Juan Jose Mangandi

The chairman of DELAC, Juan Jose Mangandi, testified through an interpreter that he and other parents felt they were treated by administrators at LAUSD in a “quasi-servitude manner, not as partners in the education of children.” He said, “What I’ve seen in a majority of locations where Title 1 (low income) and E-L (English learner) families are a majority, there is a lack of participation by parents. They don’t trust the system and don’t trust the district.”

Mangandi said he has seen police officers intimidate parents who are at meeting sites and has heard complaints that families can’t afford gas or childcare so they don’t attend the meetings.

“How can we fund these obligations?” Mangandi said. “The intent I have now is to work within the structure despite the difficulties that continue to mount. It seems like only those with money can afford an education. I’m here with a noble cause and as a dreamer.”

The three school board members reacted with concern. Scott Schmerelson, a former principal, noted, “There are many principals out there who care about our bilingual counsel, and they will have meeting times convenient for parents, in the mornings, evenings, even on Saturdays. Have faith, there are those who support you.”

Rodriguez, who chairs the monthly Early Childhood and Parent Engagement Committee where the complaints were made, said, “It sounds like we don’t want certain parents involved, we have to have a way to explore this.” He asked that staff give an accounting of how the district money is spent for their next meeting, and what the concerns are about providing childcare.

School board member Mónica Ratliff noted that “it is a burden for people in my area in the San Fernando Valley to make it to these meetings, and we have to think about solutions. My office got more versed at using devices so they won’t have to travel to the meetings, and that is one option to look into. We keep acting like these problems are insurmountable, and I don’t think that is true.”

Kathy Kantner, chairwoman of the Community Advisory Committee for Special Education

Kathy Kantner, chairwoman of the Community Advisory Committee for Special Education, said that her group has trouble keeping a quorum so they can do business.

“In the past people quit because they felt the district was just going through a check list of compliance,” said Kantner, whose committee is made up of 33 teachers and parents from independent, charter and private schools focusing on special needs. “Parents feel a sense of urgency that is not reflected by the district. Our committees exist to give advice, and we hope that sometimes you will take it.”

Mother of an English Learner student, Maria Daisy Ortiz, said through an interpreter that she has seen many limitations to parent participation. She said meetings should be held at one of the six Local District offices throughout the district and suggested that staff be more forthright about providing information and statistics to the advisory committees.

Karina Lopez Zuñiga said she has felt “less wanted” at district meetings and said it is difficult to find out information about meetings. She said, “If parents knew that they could have come down to talk about parent engagement today, there would be a line out the door. Parents want to participate and want to be involved.”

Vania Valencia, who has a son in the Roosevelt High School magnet program, said if the district doesn’t shape up “then it will ensure privatization of the schools, and this is a public institution.”

Paul Roback, who is the parliamentarian of the Parent Advisory Committee, said that parents at the schools don’t know much about what goes on in these districtwide meetings. “There is zero connection between the school sites and the district level committees, and that is a huge problem.”

Some parents gave suggestions such as staggering the term limits for the committees and making them two-year rather than three-year terms.

Families in Schools, a nonprofit school reform group dealing with parent engagement through a federal grant, has been working with schools since 2000.

“It is important to get parents and communities involved at an early grade level,” said Sandy Mendoza, the advocacy manager of the program.

Rodriguez expressed his concern and said, “The parents you all represent say they want to engage with us. We made some changes and are making some changes, and there is still work to do.”

A parent advisory committee discussing student issues.

Three LA Unified board committee meetings that were delayed a month by the superintendent search are scheduled back-to-back-to-back tomorrow, all at district headquarters.

Some of the issues on the agendas involve the continuing discussion about what it would mean to turn LAUSD into an all-charter school district, early childhood education and new information dealing with student expulsions.

The first meeting, at 10 am, is the Budget, Facilities and Audit Committee,  chaired by Mónica Ratliff. A discussion is scheduled to resume on what it would mean to establish an all-charter school district, an odd concept, given the district’s skeptical disposition toward charter schools. Megan Reilly, the district’s Chief Financial Officer, is slated to discuss the financial impact and, Devora Navera Reed, a district lawyer, will discuss the waivers and autonomies that charter schools have that traditional schools don’t have. The Charter School Division will also give a budget update.

The members will get a facilities division update on the hydration station plans, El Niño preparation and water conservation awareness efforts.The meeting also includes a review of the 2014-15 financial report.

At 2 p.m., the Early Childhood Education and Parent Engagement Committee, chaired by Ref Rodriguez, will get updates on early education from Dean Tagawa, the administrator of Early Childhood Education. The committee will also hear reports about parent engagement and expanding early childhood education opportunites.

At 4 p.m., board member Mónica García leads the Successful School Climate: Progress, Discipline and Safety Committee, which is scheduled to discuss attendance issues and expelled students.

All the meetings are open to the public

Later today, an LA Unified committee will discuss the importance and feasibility of sustaining a program aimed at helping children in their first years of life as they approach kindergarten.

While experts regard this time as critical to child development, money the district has used to fund such efforts are sunsetting: The proposed budget calls for the elimination of the Student Readiness and Language Development Program (SRLDP) over the next two years. The cost is about $36 million a year to benefit 10,000 children.

Bennett Kayser, chairman of the Early Childhood and Parent Engagement Committee, is mounting an effort to safeguard the program even as the district is facing a $113 million deficit next year and Superintendent Ramon Cortines has been telling the board that it can no longer afford to fund every program the members want.

“I believe that we must engage out neediest students and their parents as early as possible so that we might get them to kindergarten on-par with their less challenged, more affluent peers. As a teacher, I know that the so-called ‘schools-to-prisons pipeline’ is really a pampers-to-prison pipeline and that we must do more on the front end of these children’s lives to change the trajectory.”

Money for the SRLDP comes from a Local Control Funding Formula account and is used for magnet programs, magnet transportation, class size reduction programs for schools as well as early childhood education support.

A district press release said yesterday that board members are “ receiving hundreds of emails daily on this topic,” urging the continuation of the program.

As one email said, according to Kayser’s office: “LAUSD’s early learning programs are desperately needed because they prepare students for success in the K-12 system and help to close the achievement gap as it is first beginning to form, especially for low-income children and English Language Learners. Without SRLDP, most of our children would not be able to have the benefit of preschool at all.”

The committee is scheduled to hear a presentation from Kim Belshé, executive director of First 5 LA, an advocacy group for child development in the earliest years.

In November, First 5 LA released a report, Focusing for the Future, a strategic plan form 2015 through 2020, from which Ms. Belshé said she in basing her remarks. The report outlines a shift in focus for the group and calls on a new set of guidelines for the years ahead:

• Focus on prevention.
• Focus on systems and policy change.
• Seek to have a broad impact, affecting large numbers of people.
• Prioritize investments that strengthen families and, whenever possible, improve community capacity.
• Prioritize the identification and scaling up of evidence-based practices.
• Engage partners at the earliest possible stage of activity and/or investment.

The committee meeting is scheduled to start at 2 pm, with Ms. Belshé leading off, followed by Cecia Ayala, Chief Executive Director of Los Angeles Universal Preschool, and Maureen Diekmann, Executive Director of the district’s Early Childhood Education Division.