When Will A School Board Hold Its Superintendent Accountable?

“The Members of the Board have been elected by the communities to provide leadership, policy-making, and citizen oversight of the policies and practices that affect the students, families, and schools within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Unified School District.”

– LAUSD Board Rules

While the Brown Act allows the LAUSD School Board to evaluate its Superintendent behind closed doors, this secrecy is not mandated. To fulfill its mission to “[Operate] openly, with trust and integrity,” the Board could conduct the proceedings in full view of the public allowing stakeholders of the District to see if their concerns are being addressed by the board. Instead, an agenda item to conduct the “Superintendent’s Evaluation” is specified for the closed session of the Board’s meetings.

Fortunately, the Brown Act does mandate that the Board must allow public comments before retreating into a closed session. I used this opportunity to express my concerns to the Board about Superintendent Carvalho:

Why is it that this district can't seem to learn from its mistakes? How many times do LAUSD students have to pay the price for an elected Board that refuses to perform its basic obligations?

In 2015, Scott Schmerleson and I ran against an incumbent, Tamar Galatzan, who had given free rein to Superintendent John Deasy. As a result, hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted on an ill-fated iPad program and the District found itself under investigation by the FBI. Then the MiSiS program launched before it was ready, creating chaos throughout the district. A judge ruled that as a result of Deasy’s incompetence students "suffered...severe and pervasive educational deprivations." Galatzan’s response?

“I can’t remember the last time we got an update on the program...and we don’t supervise anyone who works for the superintendent, which is who was running it”

In 2018, I fought alongside private citizen Jackie Goldberg as the public complained bitterly when the Board majority controlled by the Charter School Industry hired Austin Beutner behind closed doors in a process that is said to have violated the Brown Act. Predictably, Buetner's stewardship of the district was mostly disastrous with a tenure that included a teachers' strike. This could have been prevented if he had listened to LAUSD parents who shared the goal of lower class sizes, additional librarians, and having a full-time nurse assigned to every school.

With the departure of Beutner, Goldberg and Schmerelson had a chance to push for a more open process. Instead, the Board hired Carvalho behind closed doors and, once again, without public input. There are serious questions about whether a thorough background check was even performed.

I have heard reports that Board Resolutions must now pass through Carvalho’s office before being submitted. How is this possible? It is your job as elected representatives to set policy for the district. The superintendent is your employee and holds the responsibility for implementing these policies. To give him veto power over the resolution process cuts the stakeholders out of the equation.

One of the things the Superintendent has done with his unbridled power is to decimate the Primary Promise literary and numeracy programs, seemingly for no other reason than it was implemented by his predecessor. This was done without a hearing or public discussion by the Board. When asked about this action, one Board Member replied that the Superintendent promises to replace it with a different program, though he had no additional details. The lack of oversight and openness is unconscionable when we are talking about a program that benefits students who are not on track to be Ready For The World.

As you retreat into closed session it is time to start asking the tough questions:

• Why were parents, staff members, and teachers not adequately updated about the computer hack?
• Did the Superintendent bargain in good faith with SEIU 99?
• Why were labor laws not followed as next year’s calendar was set?
• Were past Acceleration Days successful and are future plans a good use for the funds that we have?
• Why are CTCs and Special Education Centers not receiving the support they need from district staff?
• Were the plans for the Arts Passport program properly hashed out before launch?
• Why is Primary Promise being dismantled?

Since the Board chose to conduct the Superintendent’s evaluation behind closed doors, the public has no idea if they took these concerns seriously. We don’t even know if they discussed anything at all related to the Superintendent or his performance. Instead, we must trust that they did the right thing and the increasing concerns of the public are being addressed; it’s a trust that is getting increasingly difficult to summon.

____________________________

Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for public education, particularly for students with special education needs. He was elected to the Northridge East Neighborhood Council and is the Education Chair. 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.