In a staggering blow to traditional schools, the Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education voted to award the administration of Henry Clay Middle School to Green Dot, a charter school operator: In doing so, the district demoralized a campus, its faculty, staff, students and parents, and left community members and outside observers confused about the direction of Clay and other traditional schools.
The March 15 vote to convert Clay from a traditional school to a charter, effective July 1, was done over the objection of both myself, the elected representative for the area, and that of Ramon Cortines, the superintendent at that time. This decision was approved by board members who have never visited Clay’s campus, and have no understanding of its history or lack of resources and district support.
In short, the school board placed Clay on a silver platter and handed it to Green Dot, without solicitation or proposal. Astute observers know that this was an act of political payback because I do not support Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s widely touted, highly publicized and heavily financed education “reform” agenda. The decision was allegedly made because of Green Dot’s “track record.”

Nevertheless, along with parents, educators and community members, I have raised questions as to what makes this track record inherently better than that of the school. To date, I have received no answers. While Clay’s Academic Performance Index (API) score of 537 reflects a clear need for improvement, their principal of less than two years, led the school to tremendous gains and implemented new academic programs. Green Dot, on the other hand, has no history of working with middle school-aged children.
And, to make matters worse, Green Dot’s scores are no better than Clay’s. Of their 13 schools operated within LAUSD, eight have scores of less than 650, which means that only five have API scores above the district’s focus for re-vamping. Their schools with low API scores include the five Locke High Schools. These schools have been in Green Dot’s hands long enough for us to have seen educational growth, especially since they have significantly smaller student bodies than Clay. Locke’s 2010 scores of 563, 605, 495, 537 and 606, do not warrant the reward of another school in which to implement educational strategies that have not resulted in overwhelming success. This is not a track record to which we should aspire. We must continue to ask the board why it does not demand that charters illustrate an ability to get better results than current school administrations.

In awarding Clay to an organization whose API scores are essentially no better the Clay’s, the board’s action caused dedicated teachers and staff to ask why they were not given the chance and resources to continue the improvements they had started. Furthermore, as a result of the board’s decision about Clay, other schools are in fear of being taken over, despite improved test scores and educational strategies which are appropriate for their populations. While at Clay last Saturday, I found teachers and staff hurriedly packing and removing belongings from offices and classrooms because they were ordered to be out by June 27. While rushing to clear their spaces, repairs and beautification projects were being carried out with unprecedented speed, in preparation for Green Dot’s arrival. Teachers with many years of dedicated service are being displaced with little notice, no knowledge of their next assignment or even when they would be notified.
Parents, also on campus for a community meeting, were bewildered, because they have been misinformed, misled or in some instances, kept completely in the dark about key components of the transition. The input of parents was discouraged in favor of orchestrated groups from outside of the school’s boundaries. Parents with special needs or gifted children know that Green Dot does not have a history with those populations as does Clay. They are now faced with sending children out of their neighborhoods in order to maintain services and/or programs to which they have become accustomed.

In their frustration, parents shared their concerns with Congresswoman Maxine Waters, in a community meeting she hosted. As a result, parents decided to go door-to-door to inform area residents about what was happening with Clay. The congresswoman joined them on several outings and listened to the concerns of nearby residents. Community stakeholders are now raising questions, not only concerning Clay, but about other traditional schools within the inner city, that have been targeted for change under the LAUSD process called Public School Choice.

If the reform process is meant to be inclusive, then school officials and outside interests must solicit the input of legitimate stakeholders: parents, educators, elected officials, churches, business owners and community members. We are equally responsible for improving the academic performance of students within our reach. District officials must respect the knowledge, skills and abilities of professional educators who know how to implement educational strategies that will make steady, incremental gains in our schools. There must be open, honest, two-way communication as well as fair decisions taking into account a school’s history, background and lack of district resources and support.

As community members, we must investigate decisions made about our community without our input and strategically respond to plans that undermine our voice. We must insist that the school board maintain our history and legacy. By renaming the school, as they plan to do with Clay, the school board will remove more than 50 years of history, experiences and memories. And, we must tell the school board that this brand of education “reform” is unacceptable. If true “reform is desired, LAUSD must discontinue decisions which demoralize campuses and cause widespread disenchantment throughout the community.
Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte represents District 1 on the LAUSD Board of Education.