Forward on L.A. schools

WITH LAST WEEK’S judicial setback for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s bid to take partial control of Los Angeles schools, the debate over school reform is moving from the courts to the electorate. That’s not necessarily a bad development.

It’s hard to mourn for AB 1381, which appears to be slowly dying of judicial stab wounds. The bill was an organizational mishmash resting on a fragile legal construct. In other words, it would make it hard to tell who, if anyone, was running the place.

Faced with heavy political opposition as well as formidable legal barriers unique to California and Los Angeles, Villaraigosa fell back on his old strengths as a former Sacramento legislator in drafting AB 1381: He brokered deals, giving a little bit to everybody. It was a masterful use of his skills but not a convincing solution to one of L.A.’s most pressing problems.

The bill’s defeat last week in the 2nd District Court of Appeal was not a surprise, and by the end of the week, even the mayor acknowledged that winning an appeal to the state Supreme Court was a “pretty uphill fight.”

Looking forward, the mayor seems more interested in the pragmatic solution of electing a school board willing to give him much of what AB 1381 would have. There, he’s making headway. He already has two of the four seats he needs, in Monica Garcia and newly elected Yolie Flores Aguilar. His favored candidates, Tamar Galatzan and Richard Vladovic, will have to win the two seats up for election in May in order to give him a majority.

Here again, Villaraigosa is working his strengths as an enormously popular public figure with the ability to raise campaign funds and appeal to voters. We hope he succeeds. If the City Charter and constitutional law have made it nearly impossible for a reform-minded mayor to take the reins, then a new board willing to shake the district out of its complacency is the next best hope. This is still a bureaucracy that, according to a district-commissioned report released Friday, can’t seem to get its departments coordinated or align its operations with its goals. Pretty basic stuff.

Mayoral control of L.A. schools is a worthwhile goal, but it will take years of expensive political wrangling. Meanwhile, children are waiting for better, safer schools. To his credit, Villaraigosa wants to get to work.

A new board no doubt would offer the mayor some schools to run, something he sought through AB 1381. But the mayor’s vision should be larger than that. There are plenty of fine charter operators happy and able to take over distressed schools. The mayor is the one public leader who can meld city and community services with the needs of schools, raise both public and private funds and visibly hold schools accountable, refusing to accept mediocrity and dress it up as progress. A school board committed to reform should welcome a mayor willing to take that role.

*

The Los Angeles Unified School District runoff elections May 15 could be a key moment in prodding the reluctant district toward meaningful reform.

In District 3, voters have a clear choice. Incumbent Jon Lauritzen has repeatedly placed the interests of United Teachers Los Angeles, his biggest contributor, ahead of the needs of students. Most memorably, he blocked an expansion of the acclaimed Green Dot charter program in March, only to change his mind two weeks later. His priorities are worth remembering at the ballot box.

His challenger, Tamar Galatzan, does not arrive with deep knowledge of the district’s issues. But she appears capable of mastering the material and is committed to rapid reform. That’s a definite improvement over Lauritzen.

In District 7, former school administrators Neal Kleiner and Richard Vladovic are both solid candidates. Vladovic, who is backed by Villaraigosa, is the stronger choice because of his eagerness to push schools forward.

With Vladovic and Galatzan, voters have a chance to make over a dysfunctional board that holds back schools. That’s too much to pass up.