Mayor, Foes Scrap Again Over Schools

SACRAMENTO —  The struggle over the future of the Los Angeles public schools played out Tuesday in dueling lobbying campaigns across the state.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa pitched his district takeover plan to impassive labor leaders in the state capital, as disgruntled parents in Los Angeles warned the school board about the shortcomings of mayoral control.

Villaraigosa made his latest foray into unfriendly territory, informing officials with the California Teachers Assn. and the California Federation of Teachers about the basic components of his plans -- even though he was aware that he probably would not win their support.

“There has been a lot of speculation and misrepresentation about what we are proposing,” Villaraigosa said in an interview between meetings. “At a minimum I want people to be informed” about what they are opposing.

Villaraigosa has proposed that a “council of mayors” -- representing the 27 cities served by the Los Angeles Unified School District -- hire and fire the superintendent and adopt the annual budget. Though Villaraigosa would share power with the other leaders, he would retain the most influential role.

Villaraigosa’s visit to Sacramento came as state lawmakers expressed a growing skepticism about the takeover plan, which needs their approval because the district covers multiple political jurisdictions. Some are concerned about placing so much power in the mayor’s hands and question whether he has the background to take on a system as large and complex as L.A. Unified.

The mayor, who did not visit legislators during his one-day trip, stressed that his interest in the school district was not about a power grab but about an effort to improve a system in crisis.

He said a new schools superintendent, hired by the mayor’s council, would run the district.

“I’m not putting the power in myself. I’m putting it in the superintendent,” Villaraigosa said. “I’m not going to run the school district. The superintendent will.”

He added: “We’re putting the powers in the superintendent so we’re not micromanaging. That’s the key. We’re not telling him how to run the school district.”

Villaraigosa, a former labor organizer, was received politely by longtime friends from the teachers unions as well as others at the California State Parent Teacher Assn. and the California Chamber of Commerce.

As expected, he did not sway the teachers unions’ officials, although he found common ground with them on such issues as increasing teacher training and promoting smaller schools.

“I don’t doubt his commitment, but I feel as a relatively new mayor that there are so many other things on his plate,” said Mary Bergan, president of the California Federation of Teachers, which adopted a resolution earlier this year opposing mayoral control of schools. “I don’t know what kind of upheaval it would bring.”

The California PTA has not taken a position on the takeover plan, but President-elect Pam Brady said she was impressed by Villaraigosa’s overture to her organization.

“I felt like we were listened to, like he was open to us taking any position, whether it was in opposition or not,” Brady said. “He honestly laid his plan on the table and understood that some people will like it and some people won’t.”

In Los Angeles, the mayor’s takeover plan took a drubbing at a special hearing called by the Los Angeles Board of Education. The meeting was ostensibly held for the board to hear “case studies” of how other cities have managed mayoral control of schools, but, with one exception, no effort was made to present the mayors’ points of view.

The board had invited speakers from parent organizations in New York, Chicago and Detroit, all of which have experimented with mayoral control of education, and a mayoral aide from San Francisco, which has not. Either implicitly or explicitly, all of the speakers warned against a mayoral takeover in Los Angeles. School board members responded with some of their sharpest remarks about Villaraigosa’s effort.

Carmen Colon, a parent from Brooklyn who is president of the Assn. of New York City Education Councils, warned that the school takeover by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had marginalized parents with a relatively trivial advisory role.

“All I can say to you is, it’s your city, it’s your school, it’s your child, and don’t let them forget that,” she said.

Ismail Vargas, assistant director of a parent group in Chicago, said the school takeover in his city by Mayor Richard M. Daley had resulted in a more aloof, less responsive school system.

“This is the problem of mayors trying to take charge of the public education system,” he said. “We call this the public education system -- it’s for the public, not for the mayor.”

Shanta Driver, a parent from Detroit, described the short-lived mayoral control of the schools there as “a complete disaster.”

“Any time you have a proposal for improving the schools that you can’t get a majority of the school board to back, you know that proposal stinks,” she said.

The Los Angeles board members seemed particularly taken by remarks from Hydra Mendoza, education advisor to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. She described how Newsom had sought “a partnership and a collaboration” with the elected Board of Education, but had no interest in taking over the schools.

She said the San Francisco mayor plays a role in setting aside up to $60 million a year in city funding for schools, to be used for universal preschool, sports and arts, and for discretionary funding by the district.

L.A. Unified board member Julie Korenstein, noting that Villaraigosa was in Sacramento, said: “He’s just marching ahead. I mean, he doesn’t care who he knocks aside along the way.

“How wonderful it would have been,” she said, if Villaraigosa had offered a partnership instead of a challenge to the school board. “Can you imagine having a mayor say, ‘Let me help you raise money for the schools?’ .... But that was never up for discussion.”

A spokeswoman for the mayor, Janelle Erickson, called the hearing “a blatant public relations move and a questionable use of taxpayer dollars, at best.”

An assistant to board member David Tokofsky, who presided over the hearing, said the district spent less than $2,000 to fly the parent representatives to Los Angeles. “I think the taxpayers got their money’s worth,” Sarah Bradshaw said.

She said it was probably far less than Villaraigosa had spent for a fact-finding trip to New York, where he discussed mayoral control of schools with Bloomberg.

At Tuesday’s hearing, the school board invited several representatives of Los Angeles parent groups to not only speak, but to sit behind the dais where elected board members sit -- an unusual gesture that the parents accepted gratefully, but with some skepticism.

“For the first time, people want to know what we want,” said Mary Johnson, of the Parent Collaborative, an umbrella group of parent organizations.

*

Helfand reported from Sacramento and Landsberg from Los Angeles.