CSBA believes that AB 1381 sets a bad precedence for school governance that will harm, not improve student achievement.  This bill is about who should make decisions regarding school district governance, not what decisions are made.  Further recent amendments only add to the diffusion of accountability and make the bill more complicated raising further questions as to how it will be possible to implement such a governance scheme.  The bill will result in the following:

It would reduce-not increase-accountability.  Under AB 1381, LAUSD would be governed by a four-headed Hydra consisting of the elected governing board, a superintendent whose appointment would be subject to approval by the mayor, the mayor himself, and a Council of Mayors.  Authority for the approval of budgets, fiscal management, collective bargaining, personnel decisions, facilities, and other matters would be split among the four heads.  In addition, a fifth entity, “The Los Angeles Mayor’s Community Partnership for School Excellence,” (Community Partnership) would have “oversight” over three clusters of schools.  Recent amendments interject a new role for a sixth entity, the Los Angeles County Superintendent who would be responsible for authorizing the partnerships and withdrawing that authorization if they find certain conditions exist. 

All of this would result in a complex spider’s web of administrative and managerial confusion in which accountability would be blurred at best and nonexistent at worst.  It’s no wonder the Los Angeles Times concluded that “this deal spreads responsibility so thin that it’s hard to know who has it.”  Under AB 1381, the district would become a virtual Petri dish for passing the buck.

It shuts the public out of input and review of the details of the district budget.  Recent amendments to the bill state that the budget prepared and presented to the board and council of mayors can be no more detailed than fund, resource code and major object code level.  Previously the limitation was placed on what the board could adopt, but not the information provided to the board.  This establishes a policy of prohibiting public disclosure and discussion of how taxpayer dollars will be spent in support (or not) of specific district services, program and priorities. 

It allows mayors to sidestep liability for their actions.  The bill specifically assigns liability for the actions and decisions of the Council of Mayors and Partnership to the district.  This bifurcation of authority and responsibility allows the council of mayors and the Mayor’s Partnerships to have the authority and influence on the operation of schools but allows them to pass the buck when it comes to being responsible for their actions.

It disenfranchises families and voters.  By stripping authority away from the elected school board, voters will have their voices weakened.  The bill establishes a council of mayors that must ratify all decisions regarding the hiring and firing of the district superintendent.  Amendments that were accepted by the author, though they are not in print yet, adopt a convoluted approach to how this would work by requiring approval of 90 percent of the vote of the council.  With votes proportional to each city’s population in LAUSD, the Los Angeles mayor with 80 percent of the vote would have significant control over the council, but be required to have get the support of at least a few of the other mayors to act.  This is a weak substitute for true representation. 

It would disrupt a six-year trend of impressive student gains in LAUSD.  Contrary to conventional wisdom and much of the rhetoric surrounding this issue, LAUSD has outperformed not only other urban districts in California but the state as a whole in terms of improvements on the state’s Academic Performance Index.  LAUSD has achieved these impressive results despite serving a student population that has higher risk factors than students elsewhere in California, such as increased homelessness, poverty, hunger, undiagnosed and/or untreated health problems, and a greater likelihood to be English language learners.  The changes contained in AB 1381 are likely to be highly disruptive and run the risk of slowing—or even reversing—the gains that have already been realized.

It disregards the state Constitution.  The state Constitution states “No school or college or any other part of the Public School System shall be, directly or indirectly, transferred from the Public School System or placed under the jurisdiction of any authority other than one included within the Public School System (Article IX, Section 6).”  In an effort to bypass this prohibition, the bill includes a two provisions:  the first says the Council of Mayors and the Community Partnership are agencies authorized to maintain public schools and therefore part of the school system and the second requires authorization by the Los Angeles County Superintendent for the partnership schools, though the transfer of authority would still be to the Los Angeles mayor.  Making changes to the state constitution is rightfully a difficult process and requires a vote of the people.  As a result, provisions in the constitution are rooted in a strong belief about what citizens think the foundation of state laws should be and these provisions ought not be rendered meaningless by any provision that says this applies, except when it doesn’t serve our purpose.

It creates conflicts of interest.  Especially with respect to facilities and litigation, AB 1381 gives the mayor, or his/her superintendent, carte blanche over matters where the city and school district might come into conflict.  Decisions regarding the selection of new school sites, for example, are often the subject of intense negotiations between school districts and cities.  The outcomes of these negotiations typically contain compromises in which the interests of the district’s students and families are balanced against the interests of the city.  By shifting all authority for such decisions to the mayor, no one will have responsibility for standing up for the students and their families—or the authority to do so. 

It removes mandated costs, but retains bad policy.  The bill attempts to minimize the costs of the proposals by changing the language to make some of the provisions permissive, in doing so it does not change the policy and that policy still has a cost associated with it.  Stating that the cities in LAUSD are not required to spend resources on services to students or the district without approval of the city council doesn’t mean that the cities will not incur personnel costs for the time it takes to serve on the council and prepare for meetings.  Allowing cities to opt out of participation on the council only serves to exacerbate the disenfranchisement of communities. 

The most egregious example of trying to minimize mandated costs is subjecting the program evaluation to a budget appropriation.  This could allow the act to escape the objective review that is necessary to ensure that these changes achieve their stated goal and don’t, in fact, reduce achievement levels.  This can be achieved through lack of funding or insufficient funding appropriated for a thorough assessment.  This evaluation is an important component to gauging the effectiveness of the program and must be used to guide decisions regarding extending the sunset date should the bill become law.

Mayors can help now

Mayors and other civic leaders can help remove obstacles to learning. The need for mayors to work together with school districts is most profound in urban districts and particularly in LAUSD where the concentration of children who are at risk is greater than in any other urban district in California. These children are more likely to be homeless, poor, victims of violence, lack adequate health care, and nearly half are still learning to speak English and expected to meet the highest academic standards in the country. Mayors within LAUSD and other local leaders can use their authority and resources to support children outside of school in order for children to be successful in school.

Mayors can build consensus, form partnerships and collaborate.  Mayors and other locally elected officials can build community consensus, form partnerships, and collaborate with LAUSD.

Mayors can use the bully pulpit.  Mayors, by virtue of their office and visibility, are primed to be the most vocal advocates for their city’s schools.  Mayors within LAUSD can constructively use their presence and voice to ensure that education is an important city priority.