LAUSD Candidate Andreas Farmakalidis on Student Safety

Granada “clearly withheld information about the violations from parents until notified by LAUSD. This lack of transparency, especially regarding potential safety hazards, is a major breach of trust and undermines parental right to informed decision-making.”

– BD3 candidate Andreas Farmakalidis

Andreas Farmakalidis is one of four candidates who will appear on the March ballot opposing Scott Schmerelson. Janie Dam is also running a write-in campaign to unseat the incumbent. Farmakalidis’ website can be found at www.lausd3.com.

Farmakalidis has participated in all of the past iterations of the ongoing Candidate Forum series: PROP-39 co-locations, Special Education policies, and District Governance. For the December edition of the series, the questions focus on student safety issues. For background information about the questions, please see the introductory article: LAUSD Candidate Forum: Student Safety.

The following are Farmakalidis’ responses, published as provided with only minor formatting changes:

• In non-emergency situations, should uniformed police officers be operating on LAUSD campuses? Leaning Towards YES

The presence of uniformed police officers on LAUSD campuses has been a subject of considerable debate.

Proponents argue that having officers on campus provides a visible deterrent to potential threats and can swiftly respond to emergencies, ensuring a safer environment for students, teachers, and staff. They also contend that officers can serve as positive role models, engaging with students to foster better relationships between law enforcement and the community. Moreover, their presence can address issues beyond safety, such as educating students about law enforcement and deterring criminal behavior.

On the other hand, students and parents/staff express concerns about the potential negative impacts of police presence on school campuses. They argue that it contributes to the criminalization of students for minor infractions, leading to the school-to-prison pipeline phenomenon. Some worry that the presence of officers may create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation among students, particularly those from marginalized communities. Additionally, there are concerns about the disproportionate enforcement of disciplinary actions on students of color.

A potential solution that seeks to address both perspectives involves a comprehensive approach to school safety. This approach could include a blend of law enforcement presence for security purposes, coupled with increased investment in mental health resources, counselors, and restorative justice programs. These additional resources can help address the underlying issues behind behavioral problems, promoting a supportive and inclusive school environment while ensuring a proactive response to safety concerns.

While considering these perspectives, leaning toward the presence of uniformed officers on campus seems reasonable to maintain security measures and provide a rapid response to potential threats. However, it's crucial to implement additional measures that prioritize the well-being and support of students, thereby creating a balanced approach to school safety.

• The Superintendent has commented “that unacceptable and preventable frequency of vehicular incidents are impacting the health, well-being and safety of our children.” Is the District doing enough to prevent these incidents? NO

The safety of students must remain the top priority for any educational institution. It's critical to acknowledge that even one incident involving a student due to vehicular accidents is one too many. Losing students or putting their well-being at risk due to accidents that might have been preventable with enhanced preparation and measures in place is a distressing prospect.

Schools should continuously reassess and fortify their safety protocols to minimize any potential risks. The collaboration between the District, police and the city council becomes even more essential in this context. Their combined efforts should focus on creating a comprehensive safety framework that leaves no room for oversight or gaps in protecting students from vehicular incidents.

The impact of a tragedy resulting from a lack of adequate preparation is not just a loss for the affected student and their family; it affects the entire school community. It's incumbent upon educational authorities to proactively address these concerns, leaving no stone unturned in ensuring that the safety measures are robust, well-implemented, and continually updated to adapt to changing circumstances.

The collaboration between the District and the city council should reflect a commitment to proactive planning, adequate resource allocation, and swift implementation of measures that safeguard the lives of students. Every student deserves a secure environment where their safety is paramount, and it's the responsibility of the educational authorities to ensure no child is put in harm's way due to inadequate safety preparations.

• Last year an LAUSD student overdosed on fentanyl that was provided to her by a student at a co-located charter school. Do multiple schools that do not share a common leadership structure increase the possibility that hazards will not be fully mitigated? YES

It's a difficult situation as I personally know members of the family affected by the incident. The occurrence of a student overdosing on fentanyl is truly tragic, highlighting significant worries about safety protocols, particularly in co-located schools lacking a unified leadership structure

When multiple schools in a co-located setting operate independently without a shared leadership structure, it can create challenges in ensuring consistent and comprehensive safety measures. Varied leadership and differing protocols between schools may lead to gaps in oversight and communication, potentially hindering the identification and mitigation of hazards.

In situations where schools within the same premises operate separately, it becomes crucial to establish cohesive safety standards and protocols that transcend individual school boundaries. Collaboration between school administrations, regardless of their autonomy, is imperative. This collaboration could involve regular meetings to discuss and align safety protocols, sharing information on potential hazards or concerns, and establishing joint efforts for student well-being.

Creating a unified approach to safety, even in co-located schools without a common leadership structure, could involve establishing clear communication channels between administrations, implementing joint safety drills or training sessions, and fostering a culture of shared responsibility for student safety among all school staff.

While the autonomy of each school is valuable, especially in fostering unique educational environments, a collaborative effort to mitigate hazards and ensure a safe environment for all students is paramount. The tragic incident involving fentanyl underscores the importance of cohesive safety measures across co-located schools, despite their separate administrative structures, to prevent such occurrences and prioritize the well-being of students.

Potential solutions to address safety concerns, particularly in co-located schools without a common leadership structure:

Unified Safety Protocols: Establish comprehensive safety protocols that transcend individual school boundaries. This could involve creating a joint safety committee comprising representatives from each school to develop, implement, and regularly review safety measures collectively.

Regular Collaboration: Foster consistent communication and collaboration between school administrations. Encourage regular meetings to discuss safety concerns, share information, and coordinate safety drills or training sessions.

Joint Training and Education: Conduct joint training sessions or educational programs involving staff from all co-located schools to ensure a consistent approach to handling safety issues, including substance abuse prevention.

Implementing these solutions can help create a more cohesive and proactive approach to safety in co-located schools, even without a common leadership structure, thereby prioritizing the well-being of students and preventing tragic incidents like the fentanyl overdose.

• While charter schools are required by policy to notify parents when the district issues a Notice of Violation, families at Granada Hills Charter High School were not specifically told that construction projects had endangered “the health and safety of students, staff, and other individuals.” Should the refusal of a charter school to keep parents informed of these types of hazards result in the revocation of the charter? YES

Revocation of Granada Hills Charter's charter should be considered for its failure to inform parents about safety hazards.

While revoking a charter is a serious decision, the circumstances surrounding Granada Hills Charter's handling of safety violations raise significant concerns warranting strong consideration of this option. Regrettably, I'm not equipped with all the specific details concerning this issue. Despite the limited information available to me, I'll do my best to provide an informed response based on the data provided.

Here's why:

Firstly the Severity of Hazard is a very Concerning issue.

The letter doesn't explicitly mention the nature of the construction project violations, leaving the potential risk unclear. However, the LAUSD issuing a Notice of Violation suggests serious concerns about student and staff safety.

Level of Transparency:

The school clearly withheld information about the violations from parents until notified by LAUSD. This lack of transparency, especially regarding potential safety hazards, is a major breach of trust and undermines parental right to informed decision-making.

Intent (Difficult to Assess, but VERY concerning):

The letter offers no explanation for withholding information. This ambiguity raises questions about the school's intent, potentially suggesting negligence or deliberate downplaying of safety concerns.

Policy Violations (Confirmed):

The letter acknowledges violations of the Sole Occupant Agreement (SOA) regarding campus alterations. This disregard for contractual obligations adds another layer of concern about the school's adherence to regulations.

Alternative Consequences (Not Mentioned??!):

The letter focuses on addressing violations after LAUSD intervention. It doesn't mention if alternative measures like fines, safety training, or improved communication protocols were considered, making revocation appear more likely.

Impact of Revocation (Significant, but manageable):

Revoking Granada Hills Charter's charter would disrupt students and families. However, this disruption could be mitigated by carefully planned reassignment to other schools and ensuring continuity of education.

Potential Precedent and Public Trust:

Allowing Granada Hills to continue without significant consequences sets a worrying precedent for other schools potentially prioritizing self-preservation over transparency and safety. Revoking their charter sends a strong message about prioritizing safety and holding schools accountable.

To conclude, while revoking a charter is a big decision, the potential breach of trust, unclear severity of risks, and disregard for transparency and regulations by Granada Hills Charter make it a serious possibility. Alternative measures should be thoroughly explored, but revoking the charter should be strongly considered due to the potential harm to students and the importance of upholding public trust in school safety.

Remember, this is a complex issue with no easy answers. Further investigation and careful consideration of all factors are crucial before reaching a definitive conclusion.

• After a 2008 NBC 4 report exposed the existence of lead In LAUSD Facilities, the District instituted a "stop-gap measure" requiring schools to run “every fountain ‘a minimum of 30 seconds’ before school each day.’” Fifteen years later, the district still warns users of these fixtures to "flush cold water for 30 Seconds prior to use.” As a Board Member would you prioritize removing old fixtures containing lead from all school facilities? YES

As a Board Member, removing lead-containing fixtures from all LAUSD school facilities would be a top priority for me. While the current flushing protocol offers a temporary mitigation measure, it's simply not enough to fully protect our students and staff from the insidious dangers of lead exposure. Here's why:

Firstly, the Risks are Undeniable.While I'm not a lead expert, the potential health risks for students and staff are undeniable, and the current flushing protocol, while helpful, isn't a permanent solution.Lead, particularly for young children, poses severe health risks, including damage to the nervous system, cognitive development problems, and behavioral issues. Even low levels of exposure can have lasting detrimental effects. Leaving students vulnerable to these risks through antiquated plumbing is unacceptable.

Secondly, the "flushing method" relies on several factors for effectiveness, including consistent execution, proper water pressure, and knowledge of which fixtures contain lead. This creates potential loopholes for exposure, especially considering the large number of schools and students involved.

Additionally, we should always look for the longer and more sustainable solution. Removing lead-containing fixtures, while an upfront investment, offers a permanent solution and peace of mind.

Lastly, as a Board Member, I would advocate for a comprehensive plan to prioritize and expedite the removal of lead-containing fixtures in all LAUSD facilities. By prioritizing the removal of lead-containing fixtures, I can ensure a safer learning environment for generations to come.

• Do you have any other thoughts that you would like to express about this subject?

Each of these safety-related issues within LAUSD showcases the intricate balance between maintaining security and ensuring a supportive, nurturing environment for students.

Striking a balance between security and avoiding the criminalization of minor infractions remains a challenging but crucial aspect.

Moreover, the incidents involving hazards like the fentanyl overdose and lead-containing fixtures underscore the need for proactive, preemptive measures rather than reactive responses. Preventive strategies, including unified safety protocols, comprehensive safety assessments, and ongoing maintenance of facilities, should be a priority.

It's also vital to emphasize community engagement and transparent communication in all safety-related decisions. Involving stakeholders—parents, students, teachers, and local communities—in safety discussions fosters trust and ensures that measures put in place are responsive to the needs of those directly affected.

Continually reassessing safety protocols, staying adaptable to emerging risks, and implementing a culture of safety as a shared responsibility among all stakeholders are key factors in creating a secure and supportive educational environment within the LAUSD.

___________________________

Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for public education, particularly for students with special education needs, who serves as the Education Chair for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council. As a Green Party candidate in LAUSD’s District 2 School Board race, he was endorsed by Network for Public Education (NPE) Action. Dr. Diane Ravitch has called him “a valiant fighter for public schools in Los Angeles.” For links to his blogs, please visit www.ChangeTheLAUSD.com. Opinions are his own.