The L.A. Times today did not eagerly endorse MONICA GARCIA, President of the Board, for reelection for the District 2 office.
See: "A strong L.A. School Board; L.A. voters have several good choices. We pick three and hope they make students their priority."
They could have said "NO" to the endorsement and still print the comments that they did. It all fits. She is running unopposed and so she will be elected unless there is the nearly impossible outcome where she does not get the majority of votes cast for the office. With no other name on the ballot for "District 2", what do you think voters will do?
The Times was able to admit and to notice that Mayor Villaraigosa's selection for this office has not done much to advance her cause for re-election. MONICA GARCIA takes her cues from the Mayor and that probably is the reason all has not been going well in the education side of city operations.
The LAUSD is an entirely separate governmental body from the City of Los Angeles, and the responsibility for education decisions in the local public schools rests solely with the Board. The Times gives reasons that support its decision to be unenthusiastic in endorsing GARCIA that I agree with.
Read the Times item yourself. The LAUSD bond measure of $7 billion that passed originally was set at $3.5 Billion, but the last meeting on the decision for the amount had it jump to double that amount. There was not a specific application for all this money, but they wanted it to cover whatever they might need later. That was like, "let's ask for as much as we can and if we get it, we can decide later how we will spend it." So now taxpayers have that financial burden, like an unwanted tattoo, it's not going away.
Further, this is a GARCIA-led Board that has gone on a mission to build more schools as much and as fast as possible, displacing people, demolishing homes, (many homes in low income areas, pushing residents out), and then in Echo Park, doing this so rushed (rushing even while the case was in court waiting to be decided) that the opposition prevailed in court that ordered them back off and essentially start over. The LAUSD was responsible for not complying with required steps, like an inadequate environmental impact report, costing the public lots of tax dollars (again) and putting people out of housing.
But MS. GARCIA seems more concerned, as the Times sees also, with social justice so much that education turns out to take a back seat. First it's important to be able to perform well in school which will make the rest improve. That over-50% dropout rate is still there, and many parents who can manage it will continue to put their children in schools other that LAUSD. Even Mayor Villaraigosa did not have confidence in the system to allow his children to attend local public schools, and he made no apologies for his decision, he simply said he did not want to risk his own children's well-being.
The enrollment in LAUSD has noticeably been declining for years, but you would not know it from the rush for more construction that continues. Students are leaving for private schools, parochial schools, charter schools, or just leaving the District. But what happens withall this construction? Each new school needs another complete administrative population and faculty to operate and with each new school, comes new costs. The costs of schools has been out of control, another LAUSD trademark but the leadership survives unchanged at Beaudry St. District Headquarters. This year the budget is going to make some changes necessary for all the big spending of the past in assorted categories, but still there has not been a product to show for it.
GARCIA will be re-elected but not because she earned it.
Posts
