L.A. Unified on new school calendar: Never mind

Less than three months after reaching a compromise to start the school year later, L.A. Unified has changed course again and will keep its early start schedule.

The lengthy debate over the schedule has hardly been scintillating — but it matters to students and parents, who say it affects not only vacation plans and child-care arrangements but summer camps, summer jobs, enrichment programs and even college applications.

School began this year on August 16.

Many families prefer a traditional post-Labor Day school start because it lets them schedule escapes and keep their kids out of classrooms and physical-education classes during the most intense heat of late summer. Some in the school system have pointed out that it also reduces air-conditioning costs. Such views prevailed in September, when the Board of Education voted to shift away gradually from the earlier, August start.

But then came Tuesday, when school board members had to vote on the actual calendar, which showed which days were vacation and which were not — and they changed their minds about making the change.

After details of the new calendar became widely known, they started getting pressure from the unions representing teachers and administrators. Many district employees were not pleased that they would no longer get an entire week off for Thanksgiving and that the winter break would shrink from three to two weeks.

Some parents also let board members know they liked the current vacation arrangements.

In public remarks to the board, United Teachers Los Angeles President Alex Caputo-Pearl said the schedule should not be altered unless there was evidence that students would benefit.

A delegation from Eagle Rock High School also spoke for the current calendar.

In an interview, Eagle Rock college counselor John J. Kim said he was concerned that the later start would create further imbalance between the fall and spring semester, which is longer, complicating instruction in one-semester classes.

Parent Maria Soliman-Laguna said she uses the additional vacation days to schedule doctors’ appointments.

“I used my entire [week-long] Thanksgiving break to do college applications,” said Hamilton High senior Karen Calderon, the board’s student representative. The extra days off, she said, “are the times that we have to breathe.”

On the Board of Education, Monica Ratliff led the charge against the change, with strong support from Monica Garcia. Ratliff said she was concerned about financial losses. She was referring to a staff analysis that reviewed student attendance during five days in December 2011. Based on this limited review, staff claimed the later start would cost the district $42 million a year.

“I think it’s going to have a huge impact on us financially,” Ratliff said.

Four board members maintained consistent positions: Ratliff and Garcia remained in favor of the early calendar; George McKenna and Richard Vladovic argued for school to start later.

“I have not changed my mind,” McKenna said. “If you ask people, they always want more vacations.”

The biggest shift was from Scott Schmerelson, who in September argued strongly for starting school after Labor Day. On Tuesday, he said he had since become concerned, in part, that independently operated charter schools could begin sooner and “grab up all the kids before we start.”

Board President Steve Zimmer ended up abstaining.

“I am a man divided on this issue,” he said. “I will live with whatever the outcome is.”

Ref Rodriguez, the last to vote, said that he, too, saw both sides and he wished the research was more conclusive.

“People are very confused,” Rodriguez said before casting the deciding fourth vote to stay with the early start.

“We’re trying to please everybody,” he said. “We’re pleasing no one.”

howard.blume@latimes.com

Twitter: @howardblume