Why Is The School District Shutting Down Two Superior Schools? By Larry Elder

By Larry Elder, Apr. 19, 2014

A Los Angeles Times editorial on the closing down of two schools would ordinary not merit much attention.

Schools, after all, sometimes do close. A reduction in students may prompt schools to close and merge. Funding sometimes runs out, forcing schools to close. Sometimes poor academic performance may force a school to shut down.

But in the case of two Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) schools in Huntington Park the problem was neither lack of funding, lack of students nor poor student performance. In fact, the editorial praises the two charter schools located in low-income area and whose students qualify for the school lunch program:

“At issue were charter renewals for two Huntington Park schools run by Aspire Public Schools, one of the most highly regarded charter operators in California. At both schools, more than 90 percent of the students are poor enough to qualify for subsidized lunches and at least half are not fluent in English. Despite student demographics that are usually associated with low performance, these schools' Academic Performance Index scores are above 800, which the state has set as the target for a school's proficiency.”

So the two charters outperform the state target, let alone for a low-income primarily Latino area, factors usually associated with poor performance compared to the statewide average. So what’s the problem? The editorial said:

“What riled the majority on the board was that the schools had contracted outside the district for state-required special-education services. All schools must sign up for such services, which provide professional development and oversight to ensure that special-ed students are receiving a sound education. Most schools must do this through their regional special-ed agency, but charter schools are allowed to go elsewhere for cheaper or more helpful services.”

Again, the law requires the schools to have special-ed programs. These schools do. The law does not require Aspire to contract through LAUSD. These schools did not:

“This would be a problem if there were any evidence that Aspire's students were suffering as a result. But parents whose children have severe disabilities -- traumatic brain injury or autism, for example -- praised the schools to the board. Even the district's head of special education said that from everything she's seen, the schools are doing well with their learning-impaired students.”

Are the schools performing well on standardized tests? Check. Did they set up special-ed programs, as required? Check. Are the special-ed programs matching or exceeding expected standards? Check. Are the parents satisfied with the schools? Check.

So what to do? Let’s shut … them … down! The Times said:

“Regardless of the quality of education, board members Steve Zimmer and Monica Ratliff said they want to ensure that all charter schools contract with L.A. Unified for special-ed services. … Aspire contends that the agency it uses in El Dorado County provides the same amount of oversight and better data services for less money.”

Nationwide, a public school teacher is twice as likely to have his or her child in a private school compared to non-public school teachers. In Los Angeles, 16% of parents place their own children in private school. With L.A. public school teachers and their own children, however, 25 percent have them in private schools. In cities like Chicago and Philadelphia, 39 percent and 44 percent of public school teachers, respectively, have their own kids in private schools.

Short of this widespread abandonment of urban public schools by public school teachers, is there a bigger indictment of government-run schools than the closure of two schools that the district admits outperform state target? The Times says, “As for the school board, what it should do is feel ashamed for once again putting students, families and educational achievement at the bottom of its priority list.”

The scandal is that this brazen act merits a mere tut-tut editorial, and that’s it. No march on the downtown district headquarters. No blue-ribbon commission established to question whether LAUSD exists for the benefit of administrators, bureaucrats or teachers -- or for the benefit of preparing students to compete.

We are numb or indifferent to the quality of education of so-called “under-privileged, at-risk” youth. We’ve voted with our zip codes -- and long ago left urban America with our children and moved to areas with acceptable public schools. We’ve voted with our wallets -- high-income city people spend the money for private schools. Parents, of course, have a moral obligation to place their children in a nourishing, safe, academically challenging school with good, caring teachers and administrators. But in at least these two LAUSD schools, students have just that.

The outrage is that more are not outraged.

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter

"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook