Los Angeles Unified School District

UTLA leaders back mayor's school reform

By Naush Boghossian, Los Angeles Daily News, July 13, 2006

After hours of heated debate late Wednesday, United Teachers Los Angeles leaders voted narrowly to back Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's plan to reform Los Angeles public schools through new legislation in Sacramento. The 101-89 vote by UTLA's House of Representatives essentially split the powerful teachers union leaders into two camps: Supporters of Villaraigosa and union President A.J. Duffy, who backed the mayor's plan, and those who opposed the plan and saw Duffy's alliance with the mayor as selling out the union.

"Clearly there is division and it comes down to an issue of trust," said Warren Fletcher, a union house member and teacher at City of Angels high school in Highland Park. "Our leadership says we can trust Antonio and we say we need something more specific."

The proposed legislation would give the mayor more oversight of the Los Angeles Unified School District.

But Joel Jordan, director of special projects for UTLA, said the close vote reflected the confusion among union leaders over Duffy's sudden support last month of the mayor's plan. He said if more members took time to understand the plan, they would support it.

"It was very clear that because (Duffy and) the union leadership (had) been so strongly against mayoral control, and seemingly Antonio's ambitions, and to have very quickly made an agreement with Antonio, I think a lot of members need to be more informed about what (the plan) is about," Jordan said.

Takeover legality doubted

Antonio's plan for LAUSD full of constitutional issues

By Naush Boghossian, Los Angeles Daily News, August 3, 2006

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's school-reform legislation appears to violate the California Constitution, according to city and state legislative authorities.

Documents obtained Wednesday by the Daily News reveal that experts have questioned the legality of transferring authority from the Los Angeles Unified School District to Villaraigosa, which could threaten the future of the mayor's reform bill.

While there is no legal precedent on this issue, state Legislative Counsel Diane F. Boyer-Vine issued a confidential report questioning the constitutionality of transferring "authority or control over educational functions currently performed by a school district to the mayor of a charter city."

The city's chief legislative analyst, Gerry F. Miller, echoed those concerns in his own report to the City Council's Intergovernmental Relations Committee, in which he recommended opposition to the reform measure.

Others said opinions from Boyer-Vine and Miller should not automatically derail Assembly Bill 1381, although its supporters should carefully review its provisions.

"The legislative counsel's opinion does not mean that a court is going to rule that way, but it does not bode well for the legislation," said Bob Stern, director of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. "It's one important attorney's opinion, but it does not mean it will be declared unconstitutional. It raises legal questions that an author should consider."

However, Thomas Saenz, the mayor's chief counsel, maintains that the legislation is legally airtight. He said the legislative counsel based her opinion on the original bill, not the working version with many amendments not yet made public.

"There are no guarantees in life, but we've looked at this issue very carefully and we believe that, fully amended, this legislation is immune from a successful (legal) challenge," Saenz said. "The Legislature's expansive power over public education allows it to define the elements of the state's public school system."

AB 1381 would shift substantial power from the elected school board to a superintendent who would be hired by the mayor. The bill also would give the mayor authority over three clusters of the lowest-performing schools, and it would give local educators greater control over a campus budget, curriculum and instruction.

Concerned about the possibility of a legal challenge from the mayors of other cities in the LAUSD, Villaraigosa's office got the bill amended last week to allow the county superintendent of schools to revoke his authority over the three low-performing clusters.

He recommended that the City Council oppose the bill unless there is language to ensure that the city would not have to use municipal resources in support of the district. He also wants to ensure that the city wouldn't be liable for the mayor's decisions about district operations and that the council would have approval over school sites and joint city-district development projects.

It is his job to raise such issues, Miller said, but it's up to the city attorney or Los Angeles' legislative counsel to study the constitutionality of the bill.

"Our concerns that we expressed and the amendments we recommended go to ensuring that there is a continued separation between school funding and liabilities and city funding, so that the city resources and general fund doesn't end up in a position of liability for actions," Miller said.

City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's staff has not released an official opinion.

However, two council committees plan a joint meeting Friday to discuss the bill and LAUSD governance, and might vote on the issue.

Villaraigosa himself is holding town-hall meetings on AB 1381, including one set for 4:30 p.m. today at Valley College.

Delgadillo spokesman Jonathan Diamond said an opinion will be issued once the bill is finalized. "When we deliver our opinion to folks, we'll do that in a comprehensive way," Diamond said.

"It's hard to draw a legal conclusion on something that is not in its final form. I don't know when the bill will be in a complete and final-enough form for us to give an accurate reading of it."

Kevin Reed, the chief counsel for the LAUSD, said he believes the current bill is unconstitutional and raises liability issues for the city.

"I certainly think that the city has an undeniable vested interest in this issue since the legislation would put duties on the mayor of Los Angeles that don't appear in the (city) charter," Reed said.

"There are millions of dollars of liabilities that arise associated with running a school district, and they will now fall on the city," Reed said.

"I would think the city attorney would want to be looking into how wise that is, given the fact that the school district as a state agency has certain privileges and immunities in its operation that the city does not enjoy."

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nu¤ez's AB 1381 is scheduled to be debated by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Aug. 14. More amendments could be announced by then.

Reed said the district has no immediate plans to file suit challenging the legislation, although it has sought the advice of a Sacramento law firm.

"We're doing all of this because of the ambitions of City Hall, not because of what's good government, good education or good law," school board member David Tokofsky said.

Mayor's Schools Battle Appears Puzzling, Risky

By George Skelton, Los Angeles Times Columnist, August 17, 2006

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's legislation to gain some power over Los Angeles schools always has puzzled me, and I've got at least three questions.

• Why is this a piece of legislation anyway? Why aren't L.A. voters deciding how their schools should be run, rather than Sacramento politicians?
• How does Villaraigosa getting involved help the schools — especially now that the legislation has been negotiated to the point where the mayor represents just another layer of authority? How does diffusing power increase accountability?
• Politically, what's the guy thinking? Not only has this ambitious politician been making enemies in his first major endeavor as mayor, he's setting himself up for potential failure about the time he runs for reelection in three years.

The bill nearing Senate passage is as complicated as one of those paella recipes. But these are some highlights:

It would require selection of the L.A. schools superintendent to be ratified by a new council of mayors, consisting of L.A.'s and the other 26 cities' within the huge district. Because of L.A.'s size — and the way the bill is written — Villaraigosa could ratify the superintendent by himself. But he would need some votes of other mayors to veto the school board's choice.

The council of mayors — with L.A.'s exercising by far the loudest voice — also could advise on superintendent recruiting, district budgeting and school building sites. But the superintendent would get more control over the budget and school sites, taking present power from the board.

Perhaps most important for Villaraigosa, he himself could take over three low-performing high schools and all their elementary and middle feeder schools, perhaps 40 in all. That's a big risk. Since when did Villaraigosa become an expert at education reform?

Villaraigosa was in the Capitol on Monday — lobbying legislators, testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee and pushing his cause on TV.

I caught up with him in a vacant 1800s-era committee room. It was midafternoon, and he was digging into a carton of chicken-and-vegetable takeout from the basement cafeteria. "Ah, this is perfect," he told a staffer. "This has got a little protein."

I asked my questions.

Why not let citizens of the L.A. Unified School District vote on this? Why go around them to Sacramento?

"Look, these matters come before the Legislature all the time," the former Assembly speaker began, not convincingly.

Then he added: "We can't wait for a plebiscite. We need reform now."

But Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), a coauthor of the bill, conceded to the Senate committee: "We didn't want to get this caught up in a political campaign."

They could very well lose. Private polling, according to one district source, shows that voters are split evenly on the issue.

The Capitol is much easier pickings. The bill is a virtual lock for passage.

Villaraigosa has many allies here, especially Nuñez and the other coauthor, Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles). The scenario many pols envision is Villaraigosa getting elected governor in 2010, followed by Nuñez succeeding his friend as mayor. That enhances Villaraigosa's clout.

So do the endorsements for the mayor's bill by the L.A. City Council and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce — and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's promise to sign the measure before it even had been written.

"What you don't know," Schwarzenegger told me, "is that Antonio and I meet regularly…. So I have had long conversations with him about what he wants to do about education, how he wants to take over the school system. So it's not like I would say, blindly, 'Whatever it is,' because I know of his plan.

"That's why I say I'm for it. Then it's up to him what he wants to negotiate."

Schwarzenegger also must be impressed by the fact that Democrat Villaraigosa has not endorsed the Democratic candidate for governor, Treasurer Phil Angelides.

Villaraigosa said he'll endorse Angelides after his school bill passes. Why wait? "Because this is my priority."

And how does his getting involved help schools?

By using his "bully pulpit" and putting a "spotlight" on schools, he said, adding that "a mayor has the ability to marshal resources that a school board doesn't — private and public."

What would he do with the money? "We're looking at longer school days, Saturday schools, charters…."

But wouldn't there be too many cooks — the board, the superintendent, the mayor?

"It's a partnership," the mayor insisted. "Right now, you have seven school board members going like this" — he points in different directions. "They micromanage the school system [and] have refused to engage in the reforms that we need."

This, of course, is vehemently disputed by outgoing Supt. Roy Romer, who points to undeniable progress in reading and math test scores and a historically huge school-building program.

Just not fast enough, Villaraigosa contends.

But what if he can't improve things any faster? Won't he pay the political price?

He dismisses the idea: "I'm going to use the bully pulpit to make this work. I got elected because people are looking for bold leadership. I didn't get elected to watch."

Villaraigosa won't say so publicly, but he'll probably get heavily involved in next year's school board elections — a la former Mayor Richard Riordan — in an effort to stack the board with allies. Then he'd have more than a "bully pulpit." He'd have a friendly board.

More immediately, however, the mayor and his Capitol allies should make sure that they're not cutting a deal just for a deal's sake. Politicians love deals. But they're only momentary victories.

Over time, a deal can propel or pummel a politician. This deal likely will do one or the other to Villaraigosa.

Mayor Flexes Muscle With School Board

With passage of the bill to increase his role in the district virtually certain, Villaraigosa threatens to fire any superintendent hired without his OK

By Nancy Vogel and Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times, August 29, 2006

SACRAMENTO — With legislative passage of his bid for greater control of the Los Angeles Unified School District all but certain, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa warned the school board Monday against hiring a superintendent without his approval, saying that he would fire anyone who wasn't a "change agent."

A bill to give Villaraigosa and other mayors within the vast school district the power to veto the school board's selection of a superintendent passed the state Senate, 23 to 14, on Monday, with all Los Angeles Democrats in support. The bill could pass the Assembly as soon as today, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he will sign it.

The legislation, however, wouldn't take effect before January, months after the Board of Education plans to replace retiring Supt. Roy Romer.

"I wouldn't have a qualm in the world — if I believed that this superintendent wasn't the appropriate person to lead this district — to fire that person," Villaraigosa said.

"This district knows full well that there is support for this legislation," he said. "The idea that they would just thumb their nose at the Legislature, give somebody a five- or six-year contract — I would like to believe they would not do that. That would be my hope. Under these circumstances, I wouldn't give a superintendent a contract without involving the mayor and the Council of Mayors."

District officials shot back that their superintendent search would continue, with candidates probably winnowed to three or five by mid-September. Board President Marlene Canter said the superintendent would have job security without having to worry about Villaraigosa.

"There is no way he can fire the superintendent," she said.

Romer added: "The mayor doesn't have the right to fire. The mayor has to right to ratify, and this decision will be made before January…. But I don't think that's the real issue. Any new superintendent that is chosen, I think, will want to be a cooperative person with every source of interest in this city, including the mayor." Romer also said the legislation, should it become law, would "undoubtedly" be challenged in court — an outcome Villaraigosa said he expected.

Canter and Romer said they had not given up hope of defeating Villaraigosa. They stayed in Sacramento on Monday to lobby key Assembly members. If unsuccessful they are expected to meet soon to discuss a lawsuit.

"This fight is not over," Romer said. "We believe the Assembly has the opportunity to reach down and do what's right by kids."

The mayor's plan faces a raft of opponents beyond the district, including the powerful California School Boards Assn., the California State PTA and factions within the Los Angeles teachers union.

The mayor and his aides later tried to soften his comments, saying that he could not single-handedly fire a superintendent but instead would work to build support for a replacement if necessary.

And the mayor acknowledged the hard feelings created by his district takeover campaign, saying he would reach out to critics to help make the law work.

"The real work begins now," he said. "The work of building consensus. The work of healing. Battles like this create divisions, polarize [people] sometimes unfortunately. My responsibility is going to be to bring people together. It's going to be to say to this city, 'Look, let's roll up our sleeves. Let's work together to make sure these schools are schools of high expectations, schools where our kids can dream.' "

Villaraigosa campaigned for mayor on a platform of improving schools, and he has made greater control of the nearly 730,000-student L.A. Unified a centerpiece of his year-old administration.

He originally sought complete control of the district but scaled back his ambition in the face of opposition from teachers unions.

In June, Villaraigosa negotiated a closed-door deal with the leaders of United Teachers Los Angeles and the California Teachers Assn., angering district officials and rank-and-file teachers who thought that they had been shut out of negotiations.

Legislators OK School Plan; Gov. Vows Approval

Assembly Waffles, Then Gives OK After Intense Lobbying

By Nancy Vogel and Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times, August 30, 2006

SACRAMENTO — Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's bid for greater control over the Los Angeles Unified School District cleared the Legislature on Tuesday evening and headed for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who praised the mayor for "bold leadership."

"I ask the Legislature to immediately send this bill to my desk so I can sign this measure to give all LAUSD students the quality education they deserve to succeed," Schwarzenegger said in an unusually quick endorsement of legislation.

The bill embodying Villaraigosa's plan for more mayoral involvement in public schools passed the Assembly, its last legislative hurdle, on a 42-20 vote, with 17 members not voting.

The bill passed two hours after an initial vote attracted only 30 "ayes," well below the minimum 41 needed.

That early vote triggered frantic lobbying by Villaraigosa and the friends who wrote his legislation, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) and Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles).

"This is a big day," said Villaraigosa, who led the Assembly from 1998 to 2000 and is a potential Democratic candidate for governor. "I can tell you, I always knew this would be a tough battle. But the real work begins. The work of putting [together] the broad and comprehensive plan of turning around our schools, the work of building consensus in the city of Los Angeles and the schools to create a new partnership for education reform. I'm very heartened."

Romero described herself as "walking on clouds."

"To me, that vote that was delivered," she said, "it's a vote of hope and a belief that we can do better."

The bill, AB 1381, would shift budget and contracting authority from the seven-member board that sets policy for the Los Angeles Unified School District to the district superintendent.

The bill would also give the Los Angeles mayor and the mayors of the 26 other cities in the district the power to veto the school board's choice of superintendent. And it would give the Los Angeles mayor direct control over about 30 low-performing schools.

Villaraigosa, once a high school dropout, has said he sought the legislation to prevent micromanagement by the school board and to unite parents, teachers and civic leaders to reverse the district's high dropout rate and history of low academic performance. The mayor campaigned on education reform and negotiated the elements of the bill in closed-door meetings with teachers' unions.

District officials have fought hard against Villaraigosa's plan, arguing that it will add layers of bureaucracy, blur accountability and jeopardize the steady academic improvement L.A. Unified students have made in the last five years.

As they have on many days in recent months, Supt. Roy Romer and board President Marlene Canter spent Tuesday making their case to legislators.

After the bill passed the Assembly, district officials sounded a conciliatory note, saying that they would cooperate with Villaraigosa even though they disagreed with his legislation.

"We're going to have to join together and work together," said Romer, who is retiring from the district next month. "I think you've got to put personality aside. You've got to put past competition aside and say, 'Hey look, our job is to work cooperatively and collaborative to improve the education of children in Los Angeles.' "

But even as district officials offered to work with Villaraigosa, they were planning to meet in closed session Thursday to discuss a possible lawsuit to block the legislation.

The bill passed out of the state Senate on Monday on a 23-14 vote, with every Democrat from Los Angeles in support. Two Republican senators also voted for it.

Support was not so solid in the Assembly, where no Republicans voted for the bill and several Los Angeles-area Democrats abstained. They included Mark Ridley-Thomas of Los Angeles, Carol Liu of La Cañada Flintridge and Paul Koretz of West Hollywood, who missed the vote due to illness.

Liu said the changes should have been made by a vote of L.A. Unified residents, not the Legislature.

Ridley-Thomas is on the district's search committee for a new superintendent and said he therefore wanted to avoid taking a public position on the bill.

The Assembly Democrats who initially abstained but then voted for the bill included Jerome Horton of Inglewood, who said he got "personal commitments" from Villaraigosa that the clusters of schools overseen by the mayor will not get more financial backing than other district schools.

"There is a lot in the bill that I think is unconstitutional," Horton said. "I think it goes to the court and I think it gets overturned. But to stimulate the debate about school reform — it serves to do that purpose."

Another Democrat who initially abstained and then voted "aye" was Gloria Negrete-McLeod of Chino, who said she was lobbied by Romero.

"I still have some problems" with the legislation, said Negrete-McLeod, whose district does not include L.A. Unified territory. "But she said that it's only for five years and so if it doesn't work, we'll see that it doesn't work."

Nuñez said that many members were nervous about the bill because it had gotten so much publicity, and many needed to be reassured that the provisions would apply only to L.A. Unified.

"It allows the superintendent the freedom to run the day-to-day operations of the school district without being hamstrung by a school board that oftentimes micromanages that school district," he said.

"These are school board members that have a larger staff than Assembly members and they hold back progress sometimes by getting involved in too much detail," he said.

Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton) voted against the bill, as he had said he would, out of fear that the plan would diminish African American influence in the district.

Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles) recused herself from voting for the bill on the Assembly floor and earlier in the day in the Assembly Education Committee, which she heads. She said she is a candidate to replace Romer and recused herself "out of an abundance of caution."

"I've checked — there is no legal conflict of interest," she said, "but I think there's an ethical conflict of interest in choosing between the two sides on this."

Big man on campus

The school legislation that passed Tuesday doesn't provide everything that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa originally sought. Here's a checklist:

What he wanted:

Clear authority over the Los Angeles Unified School District.

What he got:

Shared authority with the school board, the superintendent and a newly created council of mayors, as well as direct authority over three high schools and their feeder middle and elementary schools. The school district has 53 comprehensive high schools.

What he wanted:

A superintendent who would not be micromanaged by the school board.

What he got:

A stripped-down school board with limited authority to review the budget and no direct management of its own staff.

What he wanted:

The ability to choose the superintendent.

What he got:

Veto power over the choice of a superintendent. A future superintendent must be a consensus choice by Villaraigosa, a school board majority and the mayors of cities that constitute at least half of the L.A. Unified students who live outside the city of Los Angeles.

What he wanted:

Top priorities include addressing lagging student achievement in middle and high schools and lowering the dropout rate.

What he got:

The bill is silent on specific strategies, but gives the mayor more influence over district decisions.

What he wanted:

A plan that would survive legal challenges.

What he got:

A bill that practically invites lawsuits — outcome unknown.

How they voted

Here are the votes cast on the Los Angeles Unified School District measure Tuesday by California Assembly members with districts in L.A. County.

Yes

• Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) Rudy Bermudez (D-Norwalk)
• Ronald S. Calderon (D-Montebello)
• Edward Chavez (D-La Puente)
• Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park)
• Hector De La Torre (D-South Gate)
• Dario Frommer (D-Glendale)
• Jerome Horton (D-Inglewood)
• Betty Karnette (D-Long Beach)
• Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys)
• Ted Lieu (D-Torrance)
• Cindy Montañez (D-San Fernando)
• Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles)
• Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills)

No

• Mervyn Dymally (D-Compton)
• Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar)
• Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach)
• Keith Richman (R-Northridge)
• Sharon Runner (R-Lancaster)
• Audra Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks)

Did not vote

• Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles)
• Paul Koretz (D-W. Hollywood)
• Carol Liu (D-La Cañada Flintridge)
• Dennis Mountjoy (R-Monrovia)
• Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-Los Angeles)

Costly defeat for LAUSD

More than $350,000 spent in bid to defeat mayor

By Harrison Sheppard, Los Angeles Daily News, September 2, 2006

SACRAMENTO - Los Angeles Unified has spent more than $350,000 in taxpayer money in its unsuccessful bid to defeat Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's school-takeover legislation, documents obtained by the Daily News show. The expenses include lobbying and consulting contracts, nearly $10,000 to bus hundreds of parents to Sacramento, and thousands of dollars to house school board members in pricey hotel rooms. They also include more than $2,000 for T-shirts for supporters and hundreds of dollars to fly parents opposed to mayoral takeover in from New York and San Francisco.

The district previously had estimated it had spent $250,000 in its efforts, but the receipts and invoices indicate it will be significantly higher as the district continues to process the most recent claims and makes payments on its longer-term contracts.

For his part, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa spent about $11,000 in taxpayer funds on his lobbying efforts, according to his office.

The information, including invoices and receipts, was provided in response to California Public Records Act requests by the Daily News.

Most of the mayor's other expenses were paid by a political committee that had raised more than $1 million. The committee reported spending $115,000 as of June 30, according to financial disclosure statements.

"The amount of resources brought to bear on the taxpayer dime to preserve the status quo is staggering," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

But LAUSD General Counsel Kevin Reed said the expenses were justified in fighting a proposal that so deeply affected the district.

The LAUSD, like Los Angeles and other local governments, routinely spends funds lobbying on matters that affect its interests.

"The reason we used public funds is the same reason we've always used public funds for decades - to support lobbying efforts," Reed said. "It's what the city does, it's what the county does.

"The difference between the mayor and us is the mayor had access to developers and others doing business with the city that he apparently felt free to call up and ask for large checks. We don't do that when they have business pending in front of us."

Nathan James, a spokesman for the mayor's political committee, said Villaraigosa believes the district should have formed an outside committee so it would not have spent as much public money.

"It would've been very easy for them to do things similar to what the mayor did, which is open an outside committee which is required to publicly disclose its funding," James said. "Instead. they used the resources of the general fund of the school district - money that was intended, and should've gone to, educating kids."

School board member David Tokofsky said the district didn't have enough time to establish such a committee.

"We were so far behind and chasing a speeding locomotive that there was no time in which to even set up and do something like that," he said.

He noted that Superintendent Roy Romer came under fire last year when he established a private nonprofit organization to fight efforts to break up the district.

That effort came under fire, however, because Romer did not initially publicly disclose he had formed the committee. He refused to disclose the sources of its donations until he faced public criticism.

Tokofsky said he believes the board should consider whether it would be appropriate to establish a legal fund that would accept contributions and help the district pursue a possible constitutional challenge to the bill.

Romer and board President Marlene Canter were on vacation this week and unavailable for comment.

But the invoices show spending included $12,000 for Canter and a staff member to make more than a dozen trips to Sacramento.

According to Reed, district officials generally stayed at the same Sacramento hotel as the mayor and his staff, the Sheraton.

The highest nightly rate paid by the mayor's staff was $302, though the rates more typically ranged between $250 and $300, according to records provided by the Mayor's Office.

The district's expenses also included consulting contracts with lobbyists, attorneys and policy specialists, including $55,000 with education consultant John Mockler and a $190,000 contract with politically connected law firm Sonnenschein Nath Rosenthal LLP.

Spending also included a $39,000 contract for communications consultant Mark Taylor, who also helped organize parent support, and a lobbying contract with Rose & Kindel that has cost about $60,000 so far this year.

In some cases, the contracts are for services that relate to other legislation in addition to the mayor's proposal, though that bill was considered the district's top priority in Sacramento this year.

The mayor's taxpayer-paid expenses were primarily for travel by Villaraigosa and various staff members to Sacramento on six occasions.

City funds were not used to hire lobbyists, consultants or other service contracts for this legislation, according to mayor's spokeswoman Janelle Erickson. Instead, those services were paid for by the committee.

The city does employ full-time staffers based in Sacramento who do lobbying and other legislative work on a variety of issues including this one.

And unlike the district's expense sheets, the mayor and his staff did not ask for meal reimbursements or per diems from city funds, Erickson said. They also minimized ground transportation costs by getting rides from staffers based in Sacramento.

James said the mayor's committee paid the expenses for four town halls held on his proposal in L.A., including equipment rental and buses for some attendees; transportation and lodging for about 150 parents who traveled to Sacramento for a legislative hearing; and staff costs for James and others who worked with the committee.

Although the committee's main job was accomplished when the bill passed the Legislature, it will remain active in case the measure ends up in court.

Critics say the district spent too much public money fighting the measure with gimmicks like bringing parents to pack committee hearings and paying for board members to travel so often when the district has lobbyists already working in Sacramento on its behalf.

Sen. Gloria Romero, a co-author of the mayor's measure, said she didn't think the district should have spent funds to organize a parent campaign.

"This was a campaign - make no doubt about it," said Romero, D-Los Angeles.

"It was the production of a campaign to get parents and students, without complete information about the merits of this bill, to be their representatives to lobby against this bill. I don't think that was right."

But Scott Folsom, president of the 10th District Parent Teacher Student Association, an opponent of the mayor's legislation, said it was appropriate for the district to pay for parents to travel to Sacramento because they did not have the same chance to voice their opinions to legislators in L.A.

"Not only was it completely correct, it was actually the district's responsibility to do that," Folsom said. "The bad thing was it happened in Sacramento, not here.

"The T-shirts - that may have been slightly over the top. But at the same time, I've got to say the other side also spent an awful lot of money. They always outnumbered us in busing."

District to Sue Over Schools Bill Constitutionality

The L.A. board wants legal clarification of the measure that gives the mayor shared authority

By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times, September 6, 2006

The Los Angeles school board Tuesday confirmed what it had long threatened: The district will file suit to overturn legislation giving Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa substantial authority over the city's schools.

The decision came one week after state lawmakers passed a bill that would create a power-sharing arrangement among the school board, Villaraigosa and a regional council of mayors. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to sign the legislation by the end of the month.

The bill also would give Villaraigosa direct authority over three high schools — as yet unnamed — and their feeder elementary and middle schools. The mayor's office has requested information on six high schools, district sources said Tuesday. They are Crenshaw and Dorsey in South Los Angeles; Sylmar and Monroe in the San Fernando Valley; Belmont west of downtown; and Roosevelt in Boyle Heights.

News of the pending legal battle came more than two hours into a closed-door meeting of the school board. "Serious questions have been raised regarding the constitutionality of a number of the provisions," board President Marlene Canter said in a statement.

The board vote was 6 to 1. The recently elected Monica Garcia, a close ally of Villaraigosa, cast the only dissenting vote.

"It makes sense to avoid implementing changes that could later be declared unconstitutional," Canter said. "As a number of interested parties have urged, we will ask the courts to review this measure and to determine the constitutionality of these provisions as quickly as possible."

Canter was referring, in part, to letters of support from the president of the 10th District Parent Teacher Student Assn. — the official parent organization for much of the school system — and the union representing district administrators.

"The numerous constitutional and jurisdictional issues in this poorly crafted legislation cry out for judicial review as soon as possible," wrote Mike O'Sullivan, president of Associated Administrators of Los Angeles.

The teachers union, the school system's most powerful labor group, has backed the bill, along with other labor groups. "I'm disappointed," A.J. Duffy, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, said of the district's decision to pursue litigation. "They're dragging this out. One way or the other, we're going to change the playing field as it pertains to education and the delivery of services to students, and they're just stalling the inevitable."

The mayor's office echoed that view. "It's unfortunate that the Los Angeles school board would choose to use taxpayer dollars on a lawsuit to obstruct reforming our public schools," said spokeswoman Janelle Erickson. "On this first day back to school, our children and parents deserve more. They deserve a school board who will join with Mayor Villaraigosa and the coalition of reformers committed to turning our public schools around."

Earlier in the day, Villaraigosa urged the board to "move on…. I'd like to see us come together and work together to implement this legislation."

Villaraigosa skipped a Tuesday tour of a new school, sending newly appointed Deputy Mayor Ramon C. Cortines in his place. In an interview, Cortines said that he understood the need for legal clarification, but hoped that litigation could be avoided.

Cortines, onetime interim superintendent of the district, added that he'd like to get moving on selecting the three clusters of schools that would be under the mayor's direct authority. The bill says the schools should be in different parts of the city.

Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Legislation to Increase Accountability within LAUSD

Press Release, Governor's Website, September 18, 2006

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today signed AB 1381 by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez (D-Los Angeles), which will improve accountability and management of the Los Angeles Unified School District.

“Today we are proclaiming a victory for the students of LAUSD and their parents. I want to congratulate Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for having the vision and fortitude to put our children first with this effort to increase accountability in LA public schools,” said Governor Schwarzenegger. “With this bill, schools with the biggest problems can get the most attention and direct oversight by the mayor, so he can focus on what counts - moving test scores up and dropout rates down.”

The legislation reforms the LAUSD governance structure by:

• Enhancing the authority of the LAUSD Superintendent by redirecting a number of functions previously controlled by the LAUSD governing board, such as personnel, business operations and budgeting. This will provide a centralized point of accountability.
• Creating a Council of Mayors with oversight and specified authority over a number of functions, such as budget review, campus safety efforts and hiring of a Superintendent.
• Establishing the Los Angeles Mayor's Community Partnership for School
• Excellence with oversight over three clusters of low-performing schools and to operate a pilot project with regard to those schools.
• The legislation includes a six-year sunset, which can be extended based on the findings of an independent evaluation.

Governor Schwarzenegger has been consistent in his commitment to ensuring a quality public education for all of California’s students. His budget invests more in our schools and programs to improve learning than any other Administration in state history. Both total funding and per-student funding is at an all-time high. The budget tackles California’s longtime underinvestment in arts and music programs with more than $600 million in funds to restore arts, music and physical education programs in California schools. He has worked to ensure that needed resources are provided to low-income and low-performing schools to assist children in our most overcrowded and challenged schools.

L.A. School Board Rebuffs Mayor's Request on Superintendent Search

Panel president says she won't share confidential information with Villaraigosa

By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times, September 23, 2006

Los Angeles school officials Friday rejected the mayor's request for confidential information about the search to replace retiring schools chief Roy Romer.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had sought "all relevant information about all applicants" both for himself and for other members of a new "council of mayors" that will have partial authority over the school system as of Jan. 1.

Next L.A. Schools Chief Gets New Powers Too

Much has been made of the mayor's authority, but the superintendent may hold more clout than ever. Some fear confusion and conflict

By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times, September 30, 2006

The next superintendent of Los Angeles schools is likely to be the most powerful schools chief in the history of the system. This CEO, who runs an agency larger than the city of Los Angeles, won't need anyone's permission to hire senior staff, bring on consultants and sign big-money contracts for everything from buying plastic utensils to building schools. And the new superintendent will be much more difficult to fire.

While most attention has been focused on increased powers granted to the mayor in legislation signed into law recently, the changes it makes to the superintendent's role are just as sweeping.

This new reality will begin Jan. 1, pending an expected legal challenge, and is among the more experimental aspects of the reform plan advanced by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Critics have long maintained that the Los Angeles Unified School District's superintendent has been hampered by micromanaging from board members beholden to the constituents who elected them. And a remedy was very intentionally built into the Villaraigosa-backed legislation.

The next superintendent will have "more executive authority," said Thomas Saenz, counsel to the mayor and a primary architect of the new order. "This superintendent will be more of a CEO, with the ability to manage day-to-day operations without interference from the school board."

The role of the superintendent is especially important now that current schools chief Roy Romer, 77, has announced that he wants to retire as soon as a successor can be chosen. The selection process is well underway — a search committee met in private last weekend and plans to meet again today to interview candidates. A shortlist of finalists is expected to be forwarded to the school board next week.

Some observers have wondered why anyone would want a job that is not only impossibly difficult but suddenly a political minefield as well, with the mayor and the school board at odds. But Romer proved over the last six years that progress is possible, and his successor will have more muscle than he did.

Until now, the elected seven-member board has been the superintendent's boss. Given shifting alliances, even a request from one board member was something a superintendent would pay attention to.

Under the new law, Assembly Bill 1381, the superintendent has the power to make more decisions without heeding board input.

The superintendent's expanded jurisdiction applies to running the school-construction program, hiring senior management staff, seeking state waivers for new programs, assigning principals, signing contracts and making necessary but routine budget actions.

"I'm not sure that it's enough power, but it's certainly an improvement," said Caprice Young, who heads the California Charter Schools Assn. and was a member of the school board that hired Romer.

She recalled Romer's having to spend "60 to 70% of the time in school board meetings or preparing for meetings." The next superintendent will have "more power over the things that matter while the school board focuses on governance issues rather than sporks versus forks — or plastic pouches versus wax carton juice boxes."

Board members could, of course, continue to discuss any budget item or any contract, and request any information. But board members would have no greater legal claim than an ordinary citizen for detailed budget information. And except with major budget categories, the superintendent would not have to obey the board's wishes on how to spend the money.

Romer has some enhanced authority through his personal employment contract — especially when it comes to managing the building of 160 new schools. Officials wanted the district to respond quickly to construction bids in a tight market, so Romer can approve a project as large as $45 million and then get official board consent later.

He also can approve contracts up $250,000 without advance permission from board members.

The new rules make such authority — and then some — a matter of permanent law, not changeable policy.

But is this framework an overcorrection? Has the mayor created an unaccountable superintendent?

To address this concern, the mayor's team refined the role of the school district's inspector general. District officials already choose to employ an inspector general as an official watchdog. Under the new law, having an inspector general remains voluntary, but the board cannot trim his budget or terminate his contract without cause.

"Now there is a very, very strong incentive for the school board members to hire an inspector general," said Saenz, of the mayor's office. "Without one, they have much more restricted access to information about contracting."

Romer said this approach asks too much of the inspector general, whose job "is to look for a certain kind of fraud and abuse."

When it comes to evaluating the decisions of the superintendent, the ultimate and appropriate authority should be the mayor, said Saenz.

"First and foremost, the superintendent will answer to the mayor," he said. "This will be an improved system because instead of a shifting [board] majority of four that essentially determines what the superintendent is going to do, an individual dominant voice — the mayor's — has been added. The superintendent will have no difficulty deciding: 'Who is the one voice I should listen to?' "

That might be how things will work, especially under a mayor with the political skills of Villaraigosa, but such dominance is not explicit in the law. To fire the next superintendent, for example, would first require a majority decision of the school board. Then the decision would proceed to the new council of mayors, on which Villaraigosa will sit along with representatives from 26 other cities and the five county supervisors. Villaraigosa will control 80% of the vote because 80% of the school district is within the city of Los Angeles. But it would require a 90% tally to confirm the sacking.

Thus, firing the superintendent would require the concurrence of numerous elected officials from assorted jurisdictions.

The same scenario applies to the hiring of superintendents as of Jan. 1, but that's not how Romer's successor will be selected. That process is going forward under the old system — with the school board firmly in charge. This timing has created consternation in City Hall, where the mayor insists on an immediate role. But until the law takes effect, Villaraigosa remains on the outside looking in — and his new law is likely to make the board's choice harder for him to supplant.

Some parts of the law add complexity and uncertainty to the new power equation. The cities of southeast L.A. County, for example, will have veto power over the person the superintendent chooses to run their particular region of schools. The provision was part of a compromise to win the votes of legislators from that area.

"That is a breathtaking loss of autonomy for superintendent," said district general counsel Kevin Reed, "that he has to consult with city councils before he can make an appointment that is so key to his academic program."

In Reed's view, the new authority is outweighed by the potential for confusion and divisiveness. He noted that the bill retains for the school board the responsibility of collective bargaining with unions: "So the superintendent controls the budget, but the school board controls collective bargaining."

There are also other splits of power. The superintendent controls most decisions over school construction, but not the power to force the sale of private property for school construction. That stills rests with the board.

There also are potential contradictions: The bill grants the superintendent specific authority to assign principals, but in another section keeps jurisdiction over union employees with the board — and principals belong to a union. The bill also talks of promulgating more local control, including the right of school communities to choose their own principal.

The teachers union — which joined with the mayor on his legislation — exercised substantial influence on where the superintendent's new powers are limited. The schools chief cannot, for example, alter union work rules — which some critics cast as an impediment to reform. Those critics worry that the superintendent will have supreme day-to-day authority over the mundane but would be handcuffed in advancing transformative change.

Despite the more powerful superintendent, union leaders insist the law also enables them to push successfully for local control of schools.

A self-described union ally on the school board disagreed.

"UTLA has signed on to have an even more powerful superintendent," said Jon Lauritzen. "And yet, they've been arguing consistently that Roy Romer is too powerful."

School district attorney Reed foresees trouble ahead.

"All we can do is pray that we have smart and wise people on the school board and in the person of the superintendent," he said. "This splitting of accountability and authority creates an opportunity for conflict and tension."

L.A. Teachers Buck Union, Repudiate Mayoral Takeover

By Howard Blume and Joel Rubin, Los Angeles Times, October 6, 2006

Los Angeles teachers have formally voiced opposition to state legislation, supported by their union leaders, that grants substantial control of the school district to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the union announced Thursday.

About a quarter of Los Angeles teachers voted, by a margin of 56% to 44%, to repudiate the schools law signed by the governor last month. A prominent dissident said the vote raised important, ongoing questions, including whether the union leadership should switch sides — and join an anticipated lawsuit challenging the new law.

Union officials called the referendum a moot issue.

Thursday also was marked by continuing theatrics swirling around the selection of the city's next schools superintendent, as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and school board President Marlene Canter traded verbal barbs.

In disparaging school board members for the secretive selection process, Villaraigosa said at a news conference that he had never been asked to nominate candidates to replace outgoing schools Supt. Roy Romer.

Moments earlier, however, a senior aide from the Los Angeles Unified School District had handed out copies of a June 16 letter from the firm conducting the confidential search, in which the mayor is asked "for any suggestions you might have for this appointment."

A Villaraigosa spokeswoman offered clarification later.

"Names of candidates were not submitted because Mayor Villaraigosa is not trying to dictate or control the process, but instead be a partner," said Janelle Erickson.

The teachers vote, meanwhile, was unwelcome news for union leadership, which downplayed it.

"We're disappointed," said A.J. Duffy, president of United Teachers L.A. "But it has no effect on the legislation. And we're going to continue to be at the table with the school district, the mayor and the community. Clearly, we see that members are skeptical of the changes this legislation will bring to schools. I don't see it as a repudiation of leadership. I view it as a repudiation of Assembly Bill 1381," he said, referring to the law that becomes effective Jan. 1.

But dissidents see more to the vote.

"What's important now is that we have a new beginning and a chance to do this thing over," said Paul Huebner, a teacher at Rowan Elementary who wrote the referendum. "The membership went this way because we were very successful in informing membership that the lawsuit gives us a second bite at the apple."

Huebner suggested that UTLA should now side with the district in arguing that the new law is unconstitutional. "I prefer to think of it as the members' side, not the district's," Huebner said.

Also back on the table is whether and how teachers should participate in three groups of schools that the law places under Villaraigosa's direct control, said teacher Warren Fletcher.

The mayor's office — and the district superintendent — will choose three high schools and their feeder schools from a group of 19 eligible low-performing high schools.

Turnout for the teachers vote was low, but about the same as for the union's presidential election.

School board member Jon Lauritzen, who is closely aligned with the union but opposed the new law, said he expected the rank and file to come out against its leadership.

"They have to take this as a wake-up call and reexamine where they go from here," Lauritzen said, adding that the vote could weaken the union leaders' position as they try to salvage gains for teachers in the law.

In their own ballot arguments, union leaders said a repudiation could weaken their bargaining position in ongoing contract talks. The teachers contract expired June 30, although both sides have agreed on an extension of health benefits.

Duffy said that members' views had been distorted by characterization of the law as full "mayoral control," which, he said, the union had successfully negotiated out of the bill's final version.

Board President Canter suggested that teachers, in fact, understood exactly what was going on.

LAUSD files suit challenging bill hiking mayor's authority

By Naush Bighossian, Los Angeles Daily News, October 10, 2006

Los Angeles Unified and a coalition of powerful groups filed suit Tuesday challenging the bill giving Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa partial control over the nation's second-largest school district - a move that could tie up the measure past its Jan. 1 implementation date.

The 61-page suit challenging Assembly Bill 1381 had been expected since Sept. 18, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the legislation hammered out by Villaraigosa, the teachers union and the mayors of neighboring cities served by LAUSD.

"(AB 1381) creates a new governance structure for the Los Angeles Unified School District which is completely inconsistent with the constitutional... framework that governs the state's schools," the suit said.

"(It) eliminates the rights of LAUSD parents and voters to control the governance of their school district. It also dilutes and diminishes the voting rights of a substantial percentage of citizens within LAUSD, treats them differently than other citizens of the district, and impairs their right to elect the representatives of their choice."

The suit was announced during a morning news conference attended by officials with Los Angeles Unified, the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles, the California School Boards Association, the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles and the district's two parent unions.

Lawsuit blasted

Later in the day, supporters of the bill - including state Sen. Gloria Romero, and City Council members Jose Huizar and Wendy Greuel - held their own news conference, where they called the lawsuit an "unfortunate obstructionist action." They also criticized opponents for filing it when the mayor was on a two-week trade mission to Asia.

Villaraigosa's chief counsel, Tom Saenz, dismissed the argument that the bill violates the City Charter. He predicted it will stand up to legal scrutiny because of amendments made to it.

"The school board's penchant for micromanagement has led them to somehow believe that the charter would give in varying detail exactly what the mayor's permitted to do, but in fact the charter does what most constitutionalized documents do, they set out broad parameters of what the mayor can do," Saenz said.

Majority leader Romero also defended the bill and accused the district of filing suit to distract the mayor's attention from the board's search for a superintendent to replace Roy Romer, who is retiring.

"The Legislature would not pass a bill if we did not believe that it was constitutional, so in passing AB 1381 we heard the arguments ... we considered them, we rejected them," said Romero, a co-author of the bill. "This is called licking your wounds."

Legal question

Romer said the district followed through on its threatened suit because it wanted a definitive decision, especially after the state's legislative counsel and the city's legislative analyst questioned its legality.

"Before we disrupt our current reform efforts in our school communities, we need to have these questions answered. Meanwhile, I fully intend to continue working with the mayor and his staff to improve our coordination and cooperation so that we better serve the students and families of this district," Romer said.

School board President Marlene Canter said she and her colleagues will move forward in establishing a partnership with the mayor, despite the lawsuit.

"Regardless of what happens in court, we are continuing to build our relationships with the mayor and his staff," Canter said.

The law also gives individual schools greater control over their budgets and curriculum during a six-year trial period and grants Villaraigosa direct control over the district's three lowest-performing high schools and their feeder campuses.

The suit will be defended by the California Attorney General's Office. Spokesman Nathan Barankin said the office would file its arguments with the court in the next few weeks, but would have no comment until then.

Although a trial judge is likely to issue a verdict before the measure takes effect Jan. 1, both sides vowed to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, if necessary - delaying its implementation indefinitely.

But Karl Manheim, a professor at Loyola Law School, said it's unlikely the case will be decided by the California Supreme Court.

"It's not apparent to me that there's anything in the constitution that would limit the Legislature's power to transfer some of the power from the school district to the mayors," said Manheim, who had not read the complaint.

"This disempowers the existing school board, but I don't think it's a serious injury. It has to disrupt the operation of the schools in some form to be granted the injunction.

"Conceivably this could reach the California Supreme Court by the end of the year, but I think that's unlikely."

Manheim's opinion echoes that of Saenz, who said he's certain the law will be enacted Jan. 1, but the suit is distracting.

"This threatens to take attention away from the nascent citywide development of a collaborative partnership to address the critical needs of students," Saenz said.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, D-Los Angeles, said the school district should already be fully cooperating with Villaraigosa in terms of giving him a say in the selection of a new superintendent.

"Right now the only thing they've done is skirt the issue," Nunez said. "They've denied the mayor or the council of mayors an opportunity to participate in the selection of a new superintendent."

But Sen. George Runner, R-Lancaster, said he thinks the lawsuit is appropriate because of questions raised by the state legislative counsel.

"If the mayor wants to take control of a school district, they need to go about it the right way," said Runner, who advocates breaking up LAUSD.

`Power grab'

Litigants charged at the morning press conference at the Associated Administrators of Los Angeles offices that the mayor's takeover was a power grab.

U.S. Rep. Diane Watson joined the suit as a private citizen and a resident in LAUSD's borders.

"I am personally grieved with the passage of this bill, because it's unconstitutional. The constitution of the state of California gives the authority to the elected board of education to administer the school district," said Watson, D-Los Angeles.

The suit comes days after the school board rejected public appeals from the mayor to involve him in the search for Romer's replacement.

School district officials have said they could announce the new superintendent before Oct. 21, when the mayor is expected to return from Asia.

Runner said the district's actions in filing the suit and possibly announcing a new superintendent when the mayor is out of town smacked of gamesmanship.

"It does sound like a bit of gamesmanship," he said. "But I think this whole process has been a bit of gamesmanship on both sides."

Two More Finalists Disclosed in Search for L.A. Schools Chief Job

Coalition Files Suit to Block Mayoral Takeover

By Joel Rubin and Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2006

The finalists for the job of Los Angeles schools chief include a retired Navy vice admiral and a former district insider who became a superintendent elsewhere, rounding out an eclectic mix of five candidates.

Ex-Admiral Is Named New Schools Chief

David Brewer III draws praise for his leadership and administrative skill

Villaraigosa says he's disappointed the board acted alone in its choice

By Joel Rubin and Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times, October 13, 2006

The Los Angeles Board of Education unanimously selected retired Navy Vice Adm. David L. Brewer III to be the next superintendent Thursday amid a battle for control of the school system between the board and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Brewer, 60, who left the Navy in March, is a non-educator who, school board members say, impressed them with his intelligence, accomplishments and leadership skills. He recently headed the Military Sealift Command, where he oversaw the supply chain for equipment, fuel and ammunition for U.S. forces worldwide. He was in charge of more than 8,000 military and civilian personnel and about 120 ships.

"I'm honored and humbled to be selected as the next superintendent of L.A. Unified and look forward to working with all the stakeholders in the city for the children of Los Angeles," said Brewer, who spoke briefly when reached by phone. The school board intends to introduce him at a morning news conference.

Despite broad management experience, Brewer has never run a school district, let alone one which is the scene of a rhetorical and legal war between Villaraigosa and the school board.

The mayor, who is in Asia on a trade mission, said he hoped that the new superintendent would be an advocate for change in the district but that he was disappointed with the board's selection process.

Members of the committee that turned over the names of five finalists for the job predicted that the admiral would have the skills and experience to take charge.

Running the Los Angeles Unified School District is about "managing a complex organization with limited resources. That's what it comes down to," said Scott Plotkin, executive director of the California School Boards Assn. "That and inspiring, leading people. Brewer will be a true leader for the district and a force in the community on behalf of the district, which is something they badly need."

After meeting all day in closed session, members of the school board unexpectedly announced their unanimous decision just before 7 p.m. Thursday in a brief public session before a virtually empty boardroom.

Board President Marlene Canter called Brewer "a giant of a man" who has "education in his DNA" — his mother was a teacher for more than four decades. His wife is a middle school teacher with a doctorate. Canter predicted that Brewer, who will move from the Washington, D.C., area to take the job, would become a civic leader in Los Angeles.

"His leadership capabilities, his intellect, his experience led us to believe, without really any doubt, that this man will be able to take on the second-largest school district and represent every single kid," Canter said.

She said Brewer could take control of the district in as quickly as a month. The length of Brewer's contract and his salary remain to be negotiated. Canter indicated, however, that she expected the board to offer Brewer a multiyear contract.

"Longevity is important," she said, adding that Brewer "made it very clear to us that he understood that this is not a short-term job."

Before he departed, Villaraigosa insisted that the board should await his return and include him in the selection process. He wanted to review the entire list of potential candidates.

But Villaraigosa and the school board were unable to agree on a role for the mayor. The school board's last and best offer was to let Villaraigosa interview finalists and provide input, much like a school board member — provided that he ultimately supported the board's choice.

The mayor declined, insisting on a role more consistent with new powers he would have as of Jan. 1, when a law giving him substantial authority over local schools is scheduled to take effect.

Under the Villaraigosa-backed legislation, the mayor would be able to veto the hiring and firing of superintendents through a council of local mayors that he would dominate. The fate of the law itself is in limbo because of a legal challenge filed Tuesday by the school district and others.

Canter said she notified the mayor's office immediately after the board's decision.

The reaction from City Hall and district critics was immediate.

"I am deeply disappointed that the school board would move ahead with selecting a superintendent without the participation of the council of mayors, parents and the Los Angeles community," Villaraigosa told The Times. "I'm hopeful that I will have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Brewer and discuss his qualifications and philosophy about education reform. I'm looking forward to working with him, parents and teachers to improve our schools."

The response was less measured from state Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), who co-sponsored the legislation that gave Villaraigosa his sought-after authority.

"Maybe they got it right choosing an admiral because this is like the Titanic, a sinking ship," Romero said. "I don't know the admiral, and I will meet the admiral. But this is a complete mockery, a complete snubbing of the mayor and the will of the Legislature. This is the school board thumbing their noses in the most horrendous way. They're going to get their guy without giving a damn about anything that has occurred in Los Angeles or in California in the last year and a half."

The school board was in no mood to wait for the new rules to take effect or even for the mayor to return from abroad Oct. 22. It delivered its verdict less than two weeks after a search committee turned over five names.

"The timing of the mayor's trip had nothing to do with this," Canter said. "The mayor has his job; he has his calendar; he has his agenda. He's doing his work. We have our work, our own schedule. We started this in February."

In choosing Brewer, with his commander's bearing and impressive resume, the school board hopes to insulate itself from complaints that it acted hastily.

The mayor, in turn, if he is perceived as unfairly critical of Brewer, who is African American, runs the risk of backlash, particularly in the black community. In the last mayoral election, large numbers of voters in South Los Angeles switched from incumbent James K. Hahn to Villaraigosa in part because Hahn fired African American Police Chief Bernard C. Parks. And support for Villaraigosa's move for control of the school district is mixed among members of the black community.

Brewer, a native of Farmville, Va., who was raised in Orlando, Fla., began his Navy career in 1970 after graduating from the historically black school Prairie View A&M University in Texas. At the time, only 250 of 72,000 total officers were African Americans.

"I had a tough time. I had to overcome a lot of what I considered to be inherent bias in the Navy toward African Americans. But I did have a lot of role models along the way, both African American and white, and they really sustained me throughout my career," Brewer said in an interview last year with The Black Collegian magazine.

His first assignment was as an electronic warfare officer aboard a guided missile cruiser. He moved up quickly through the ranks, holding a wide variety of positions including minority recruiting officer.

Late in his Navy career he earned a series of command roles, culminating with his sealift role in August 2001. He also served briefly as vice chief of naval education and training, which offers academic and naval training to sailors. In October, 2002, he was promoted to vice admiral.

Among board members, Brewer won the support of Monica Garcia, who is considered a staunch ally of the mayor.

"I would have liked to see a more transparent process and would have liked the mayor to have a role in the selection," Garcia said.

But Brewer "presented an attitude of inclusion and an understanding that the district isn't going to do this alone."

Non-educators, including former military leaders, have a mixed record running school districts. The most notable example of a military leader who ran a school system is Army Maj. Gen. John Stanford, who headed the Seattle public schools from 1995 until his death from leukemia in 1998.

"John Stanford did an outstanding job of changing the perception of the school district of the business community and even the community of parents from quite negative to quite positive," said Dick Clark of the Seattle-based Institute for Educational Inquiry.

Brewer will succeed another non-educator, former three-term Colorado Gov. Roy Romer, who had announced plans to retire from L.A. Unified as soon as a successor could be named.

Romer had some advantages — he had been considered a leader among governors on education issues and had substantial experience dealing with teacher unions in Colorado.

But Romer, for one, expressed no doubts about Brewer.

"Great decision," Romer said. "He'll be a great leader."

David L. Brewer III

Age: 60

Hometown: Farmville, Va. Raised in Orlando, Fla.

Previous job: Recently retired after 36 years in the U.S. Navy, rising to the rank of vice admiral. In his last post, he headed the Military Sealift Command, where he oversaw the supply chain for equipment, fuel and ammunition for U.S. forces worldwide. He was in charge of more than 8,000 people and 124 ships.

Awards: Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit (three), Meritorious Service Medal (two) and the Navy Achievement Medal

Education: Graduate of Prairie View A&M University; attended Naval War College

Family: Married; one child

Sources: U.S. Navy biography, Who's Who in America, Times reports

Next leader of L.A. school district vows to remove 'bad teachers'

David Brewer III draws praise for his leadership and administrative skill

Brewer expects to be 'vilified' for doing so. He also wants to trim the district bureaucracy and revamp middle schools

By Joel Rubin and Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times, October 27, 2006

Los Angeles' incoming schools chief vowed Thursday to make removing "bad teachers" a major focus of his plan to improve schools — and made clear he was willing to sacrifice his early popularity over the issue.

"I'm going to be unpopular," said David L. Brewer, who is expected to take over as schools superintendent by the middle of next month.

"It's called the right teacher in the right classroom in the right school…. Some people do not belong in the classroom, OK? They don't belong there. We're gonna get them out. The question is how is the system going to react to the way we get them out."

Brewer, 60, made the comments as part of a wide-ranging discussion with Times reporters and editors about his early impressions of the Los Angeles Unified School District and his plans to reform the nation's second-largest school system.

During the hourlong conversation, Brewer repeated his belief that dropouts remain one of the district's greatest problems.

He reiterated his intent to forge ties with city agencies that serve poor, at-risk children and said he would focus on a quick, dramatic overhaul of the district's long-overlooked middle schools. Brewer also indicated that he plans to streamline the mammoth district by slashing the size of its bureaucracy.

But in promising to take on poorly performing teachers, the retired Navy admiral steered headlong into perhaps the most volatile waters he will navigate as superintendent.

School principals and other administrators often bemoan the time and effort it takes to remove ineffective teachers, citing the extensive job protection granted in the union contract and under state law as a key barrier to reforming a school.

It is a frequently made charge that angers union leaders, who say teachers deserve and need the protection to defend against incompetent or vindictive principals.

When read a transcript of Brewer's comments, A.J. Duffy, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, said the incoming superintendent has much to learn about the school district.

"He's also going to have to understand that a major cause of problems at schools are principals and assistant principals who are not team builders or team leaders," Duffy said.

"I hope he schools himself in the issue of administrators who are top-down, 'Do what I say' people rather than … team-building, collaborative people who regard and respect classroom teachers," Duffy said.

"We will continue to fight tooth and nail to protect our folks who are speaking out at school sites and representing teachers."

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also focused Thursday on the role of teachers in the effort, but he emphasized reforming what he called an oversized bureaucracy that thwarts the best efforts of a mostly superlative teaching corps.

"The key to reform has to be a partnership with teachers," the mayor told a gathering of about 60 school union representatives and others in a Presbyterian church in the Wilshire district.

Under state law, school districts can dismiss teachers during their first two years on the job without providing a reason. After two years, administrators must meticulously document poor performance over time, formally declare the intention to dismiss the teacher and then give the instructor time to improve. It is an often-futile process, district officials say, that can take years to complete.

As of last year, Los Angeles Unified administrators had attempted to dismiss 112 permanent teachers — a small fraction of the district's roughly 37,000 instructors — over the last decade. Some were fired; most resigned or retired.

Brewer acknowledged the dangers and difficulties of trying to push burnt-out or ineffective teachers from the classroom.

"That's the third rail. That's Social Security, and I know it. And I'm just going to have to put my hand on it. And I know it's going to be tough. I'm going to be vilified. I'm going to get called all kinds of names."

He offered no details on how he would follow through, but indicated that after being given a chance to improve, some teachers would be transferred to nonclassroom assignments while others would be encouraged to retire.

"I'm not saying you need to be unfair. You need to go in there and coach and work and train and do all the professional development you can," he said. "But there's an old saying: There are two kinds of birds: chickens and eagles. If you throw an eagle up, eventually it's going to fly. If you throw a chicken up in the air, all it's going to do is poop on you. Eventually, you got to understand it's a chicken and leave 'em in the yard."

Brewer and Duffy are scheduled to meet for the first time next week over dinner. When they do, Duffy probably will have other concerns to raise.

On Thursday, Brewer praised the district's implementation of Open Court, a reading program that provides teachers with scripted lesson plans and is required in nearly all elementary schools. Union officials strongly oppose what they characterize as overreliance on centralized programs, saying they can stifle teachers and overemphasize standardized testing.

Villaraigosa indicated that he too has concerns about mandated teaching plans.

"The art of teaching is every bit as important as the science of teaching," Villaraigosa said.

Brewer, the mayor and Duffy seem to share a common view, however, on the school system's bureaucracy. Duffy and Villaraigosa have called for the district to make cuts to what they say are its bloated ranks.

"There are too many administrators in the district … and they know I intend to do something about that," the mayor said.

Brewer sounded a similar note Thursday, saying he had made it clear during his job interviews with the Board of Education that he intended to slim down the district's roster of roughly 36,000 administrators and support staff.

"I said: 'I hate bureaucracy. So I'm going to go after this piece, OK? I'm going to transform this organization. You want me? That's what you're going to get,' " Brewer recounted.

And after outgoing Supt. Roy Romer's focus on reforms in elementary and high schools, Brewer pledged to turn his attention to improving instruction in the middle schools.

With many students promoted each year to high school unprepared for the increased rigor and many middle- and upper-class parents opting to remove their children from the district after elementary school, Brewer said he expects "to go after the middle schools with reckless abandon."

"If the community works with me and gets me the support I need," he said, "I will fix the middle-school problem in the next two or three years — no problem."

L.A. schools chief to get $300,000 a year

Retired vice admiral's four-year contract also will provide a $45,000 expense account and $3,000 monthly housing allowance

By Joel Rubin, Los Angeles Times, October 31, 2006

David L. Brewer, the retired Navy vice admiral selected to become Los Angeles' next education chief, agreed Monday to a four-year contract that will pay him $300,000 per year.

The agreement, which has been signed by school board President Marlene Canter and is expected to be ratified today by a majority of the seven-member board, also provides Brewer with a $3,000 monthly housing allowance, a $45,000 annual expense account, an automobile and an extensive benefits package.

The district also will pay moving expenses for Brewer, 60, and his wife to relocate from Virginia and pay for them to live in a hotel for up to six months while they search for a place to live.

Outgoing Supt. Roy Romer has earned $250,000 each year since he started in 2000, but always declined up to $100,000 in annual bonuses. There are no such bonuses in Brewer's contract, which calls on the board to set performance benchmarks each year for the superintendent and meet annually to decide on whether to give him a raise.

Under terms of the agreement, which is set to begin Nov. 13, the board will waive state guidelines that require superintendents to have earned an administrative credential from an academic institution. Brewer has no experience as a teacher or running a public school system.

The contract also moves to preempt Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the mayors of other cities served by the Los Angeles Unified School District, who have battled with the board for increased control of the district.

Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that, among other things, grants the so-called Council of Mayors the power to veto the board's hiring of a superintendent. If it survives a legal challenge by the board and others, the law will go into effect Jan. 1.

Brewer's contract states that if the mayors refuse to ratify any future contract extensions the board gives him, then they will have terminated him "without just cause." That would allow Brewer to demand that he be paid the remainder of his salary.

Mayor steers donations to his targeted schools

Villaraigosa earmarks millions for campuses he is trying to control. Critics say he is pitting 'haves' vs. 'have-nots'

By Joel Rubin, Los Angeles Times, December 14, 2006

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is steering money to the schools he seeks to control, announcing Wednesday that a major telecommunications company has pledged $1 million for after-school programs on those campuses.

Under the terms of the agreement between Verizon and the nonprofit LA's BEST program, the money can be spent only on the clusters of schools the mayor seeks to control as part of a new law giving him increased authority in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

"We're directing and focusing resources in a strategic way," Villaraigosa said as he rushed off from a tightly scripted midmorning news conference at Sylmar Elementary School. "You're going to see a lot more participation on the part of the business community in support of our education reform efforts, it's as simple as that."

But to critics of the mayor's months-long, acidic battle to wrest some control from the district's seven-member Board of Education, news of the gift was anything but simple.

They said Verizon's check, plus an additional $1 million given recently by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, raises troubling questions about fairness and possible dissension between schools if the new law survives legal challenges and goes into effect Jan. 1.

"We are disappointed by the strings the mayor apparently has woven in," said Kevin Reed, general counsel for L.A. Unified. "It is a shift away from the partnership ideal, where the money goes to the kids who need it the most and instead is driven only to where the mayor wants. His schools will be 'haves,' while district schools will be 'have-nots.' "

The mayor's office fired back at such charges. Janelle Erickson, a spokeswoman for Villaraigosa, said the mayor was committed to increase funding for all district schools but "is going to be unapologetic about bringing more resources into the cluster schools, which will be some of the lowest performing. He sees them as an opportunity to show you can change the equation in schools that far too many people have given up on."

Such comments contradict those of the mayor's top education advisor, Ramon C. Cortines, who told a teachers union gathering last month that these schools would not be "exclusive" and that they would not receive "special treatment." Cortines was in New York City on Wednesday meeting with more potential donors, Erickson said.

On Friday, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge is scheduled to hear arguments to the reform law in a lawsuit brought by the school board, parents groups and others. They contend that the law, including the section that calls for the mayor to take control of three high schools and the clusters of campuses that feed into them, violates the state Constitution. The mayor has not identified the schools yet but is assembling a team to help run them.

If the judge issues an injunction against the law or strikes it down, LA's BEST would still keep the donation. If the law is upheld, the program would pour the money into two of the mayor's clusters and "blitz" those schools, offering students a menu of some of their most successful academic, arts and sports programs, said Carla Sanger, the group's president and chief executive officer.

We want to show what happens when you have all the possibilities and you have the funding … for all the best we know how to do in one place," she said.

The program, started in 1988 by then-Mayor Tom Bradley, has grown into an expansive, well-respected organization that offers tutoring and recreation activities after school each day to more than 26,000 low-income students on 168 campuses. It relies on a mix of public funds from the district and city and private contributions to meet its nearly $28-million budget.

The size of the donation marked a notable step up for Verizon, which has given about $175,000 to the program in the past — most of it in 2001, when it made a $150,000 contribution. The company has no new deals pending before the city, according to a company spokesman, but has an existing $20-million contract to install communication systems in city buildings.

Verizon executive Tim McCallion, a close friend of the mayor who has contributed to his election campaigns, said it was important for the company to support the mayor's reform plan. The hope, he said, is that the cluster schools will produce results that can be implemented elsewhere.

Sanger acknowledged the restrictions on the donation but echoed McCallion, saying she believes the clusters could be "a laboratory" for the rest of the district.

"Is it fair? No, it's not fair…. But we're working on that…. You've got to do what you can do and then push to make it equitable and have access for everybody."

Villaraigosa school plan goes to court

Judge may rule next week on whether a mayoral takeover, set for Jan. 1, is constitutional. The losing side is expected to appeal

By Howard Blume and Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times, December 16, 2006

The law giving Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa substantial powers over Los Angeles public schools got its first airing in court Friday, when a judge asked pointed questions about the centerpiece of the intervention efforts: the mayor's authority to assert direct control over more than three dozen schools.

The Legislature passed the Villaraigosa-backed law this fall, but the school district and other parties sued last month to permanently block the measure from taking effect Jan. 1, arguing, among other things, that it violates both the state Constitution and the Los Angeles City Charter.

Superior Court Judge Dzintra I. Janavs did not issue a ruling Friday after listening to three hours of testimony from lawyers representing Villaraigosa, the Los Angeles Unified School District and others. Janavs said she hoped to make her decision before the end of next week. The losing side is expected to appeal.

At issue is Assembly Bill 1381, which would shift some powers of the school board to the district superintendent and others to the mayor and a new Council of Mayors that Villaraigosa would dominate.

Perhaps the most crucial provision for Villaraigosa, however, allows him to choose and take control of three high schools and all the elementary and middle schools that feed into them. The schools could serve as many as 80,000 students, equivalent to the state's fourth-largest school district.

Villaraigosa's attorneys argued that the Legislature had broad powers under the California Constitution to designate authority over school systems.

But Janavs had questions about that. What, she asked, would stop the Legislature from naming anyone to run schools?

"Maybe we should get the police chief into a partnership and a council," she said. "Or maybe the district attorney. Where should the line be drawn?"

"You don't have to reach that far," responded Bradley S. Phillips, a private attorney who acted as lead trial counsel for the mayor's team.

"I think I do," said Janavs, returning repeatedly to the implication that the Legislature's discretion had no apparent limits.

Attorneys for the school system picked up on the judge's interest, arguing that the mayor's team was, in essence, arguing that a "dog catcher" could be designated to run schools, or that the Legislature could take it upon itself to assign the mayor to run the county's jails or the state of Utah.

Transferring so much power to the mayor and the Council of Mayors would eviscerate the school board's authority, violating the intent of the state Constitution and the Los Angeles city charter, said Fredric Woocher, a private attorney representing the district, parent organizations and some individual parents.

"At what point has the Legislature taken so much authority from the school board that it's no longer effectively governing?" he asked.

The judge's questions suggested that the constitutional objection becomes stronger as the school board becomes weaker. That put Villaraigosa's team in an awkward position. His lawyers repeatedly insisted that Villaraigosa's new authority was strictly limited, that the school board remained intact and relatively potent and that prevailing laws and oversight remained in force.

But their arguments ran counter to the original thrust of Villaraigosa's school reform effort: He had vowed to wrest as much authority as possible from the school board, chiefly by taking over the three groups of schools.

Last weekend, Villaraigosa announced the hiring of four educators who would help run his schools, and on Wednesday, he unveiled a $1-million private donation; another $1 million already was in hand.

He's supposed to select his first group of schools by Feb. 1 and the second by March 1. That could become a challenging time frame for the mayor as the court case plays out.

The Council of Mayors, by contrast, is less crucial to the mayor's immediate plans because its primary duty is to ratify the hiring of a superintendent. On this front, the school board circumvented Villaraigosa by signing retired Vice Adm. David L. Brewer to a four-year contract last month, before the new law could take effect.

Brewer could yet be the unlikely beneficiary of Villaraigosa's efforts. The law transfers some of the school board's powers to him, and this transfer is subject to fewer constitutional challenges.

The judge raised the possibility that she would throw out some parts of the new law, but she didn't specify which. She queried the parties about whether the rest could function on their own.

The mayor's team argued that they could. An attorney for the school district said the answer depended on what survived.

The notion that part — but not all — of the new law could persist might displease some of the mayor's allies who worry that a piecemeal bill could undermine school reform efforts.

Last fall, former Mayor Richard Riordan, philanthropist Eli Broad, former Gov. Pete Wilson and some legislators specifically asked the law's backers to remove a "severability clause," and the mayor's team complied. This action suggested that if part of the bill failed, it would all be nullified. At least that's how proponents of the change understood it.

The mayor's attorneys said in court papers that severability is spelled out in the education code.

After their appearance in court, school district attorneys seemed distinctly hopeful.

"The judge has obviously taken the time to deal with these issues, read the briefs thoroughly and showed a command of the case law," said Kevin Reed, district general counsel. "I think that we're right, and I'm cautiously optimistic."

Villaraigosa predicted the law would be upheld and would "allow us all to move past the lawsuit and begin implementing the reforms."

The mayor's top legal advisor acknowledged that his side had to field numerous pointed questions but insisted that the judge's inquiries gave no reliable indication of a ruling against the law.

"I wouldn't take so much from who gets asked more questions," said Thomas Saenz, the mayor's legal counsel, who attended the hearing but did not argue the case.

"Sometimes that's just clarifying her own thinking."

Whatever survives of the new law would be a plus, he said.

"Every piece of the package," Saenz said, "was important."

Judge tosses out mayor's takeover of L.A. schools

A law giving Villaraigosa control over some campuses violates state Constitution, jurist says

By Howard Blume and Joel Rubin, Los Angeles Times, December 22, 2006

A Superior Court judge Thursday struck down legislation that gave Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa substantial authority over the Los Angeles Unified School District, a stunning setback to his plans for assuming direct control of dozens of Los Angeles schools.

Judge Dzintra Janavs said the law, which would have taken effect Jan. 1, violated multiple provisions of the state Constitution and the Los Angeles City Charter. She ordered public officials "to refrain from enforcing or implementing" any part of Assembly Bill 1381, which codified Villaraigosa's powers.

In a late afternoon news conference, the mayor vowed to seek an expedited appeal.

"I believe we have the law on our side. I believe we have the Constitution on our side," Villaraigosa said. "More than that, I believe we have the people on our side."

The mayor said he might ask the California Supreme Court to take the case immediately. In an appeal, the mayor's lawyers can make their case anew; the higher courts are not bound by the ruling.

School Board President Marlene Canter was elated at the ruling, but remained measured in her reaction, pledging to work with the mayor.

"I am gratified that the court struck down AB 1381 in its entirety," Canter said. "It confirms my long-standing belief that this legislation was unconstitutional and not in the best interest of our students."

After a private conversation in the wake of the ruling that included Villaraigosa and schools Supt. David L. Brewer, Canter said "we all agreed to work together on behalf of our students." But when pressed for details, she spoke not of including the mayor in education-related decisions, but about cooperation in keeping schools and neighborhoods safe.

The ruling was a sweeping preliminary victory for L.A. Unified, and puts in question Villaraigosa's education agenda, which was embodied in the legislation before the court. It was a rare setback for a mayor who had enjoyed a series of political triumphs.

It also underlines the importance of the March school board elections, in which four of seven board seats are on the ballot. The current school board majority vigorously opposed the law and sued to overturn it.

Under the law, Villaraigosa would have ratified the hiring and firing of future superintendents through a "Council of Mayors" that he would have dominated. And he also would have had direct authority over three low-performing high schools and the elementary and middle schools that feed into them.

Janavs found the entire law defective.

"The statute makes drastic changes in the local governance of the LAUSD, giving the Mayor a role that is unprecedented in California," she said in her 20-page ruling, adding that the law "completely deprives the LAUSD governing board of any ability to control or influence the actions or decisions" in schools under the mayor's control.

This transfer of power was a primary goal of the legislation, but Janavs rejected that transfer as contrary to the California Constitution on numerous grounds. Fundamentally, she said, the Constitution forbids transferring authority over schools to entities outside the public school system.

She cited a 1946 constitutional amendment that "specifically removed municipal authority over school districts and appears to reflect the people's determination to separate municipal functions from school functions due to the variety of conflicts that arise between their respective interests."

The mayor's side argued that the Legislature had broad authority to designate the mayor, or any entity, as a valid education agency to oversee schools.

But the judge sided with district lawyers who argued that such reasoning would allow the Legislature to hand over schools to Jiffy Lube.

"The Mayor of Los Angeles [and] the members of the Council of Mayors … are not 'authorities' within the Public School System or 'officers of the public schools,' " Janavs wrote.

She also concluded that the law violated the Los Angeles City Charter and the state Constitution by weakening the school board's authority and by putting Villaraigosa in conflicting management roles.

She explicitly invalidated the entire law. "There is substantial evidence that [the law's] passage," she wrote, "was the result of political compromise and that its provisions are so interconnected … that no single provision would have been enacted or should be given effect without the whole."

The district's legal allies included individual parents, long-established parent groups, the League of Women Voters, the school administrators' union and the California School Boards Assn., which hailed the decision.

"The constitutional protection of the public schools and their separation from other municipal authorities is what was embedded in the Constitution and approved by the people decades ago, and it was worth fighting for," said Scott P. Slotkin, the California School Boards Assn.'s executive director. "We're deeply grateful for the judge's decision because there are a number of mayors who were looking at this very carefully and thinking, 'Wouldn't it be cool to take over the school district.' "

The matter, however, is hardly settled, especially given Villaraigosa's willingness to fight. On Thursday, he declined to talk compromise regarding the school board.

Several times, Villaraigosa returned to the sort of rhetoric that both highlighted the school system's failings and rankled the school board.

"We can't tolerate a 50% or more dropout rate or 80% of our kids failing school," Villaraigosa said. "We can do better, that's what this reform effort is all about." He also vowed to proceed with planning and fundraising for the schools that would be under his control.

In a sign that he may still be seeking leverage against the school board, the mayor said that he had spoken to state Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, a close ally, about asking the Legislature for a full audit of the district to identify wasted funds.

Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) called the decision "legal hairsplitting" that "has prevailed over the interests of children."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the bill into law, signaled strong continued support.

"The status quo simply isn't working — the current system is failing too many of our students," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "That's why I applaud the mayor for his desire to bring accountability to L.A. public schools, so we can move test scores up and dropout rates down. I join the mayor's appeal of this ruling."

The judge's ruling, in a small way, addressed whether the school district was, in fact, failing. She cited information from district court papers that stated that L.A. schools were improving faster than schools statewide.

The appeals court will reconsider the facts of the case, said Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor of law at Duke University, with long experience in California jurisprudence. "The questions presented here have never been dealt with in California courts before," he said. "This judge has come down on the side of the school district. That doesn't mean the higher courts will. There are strong arguments on each side here."

Another legal expert said he wasn't surprised that the entire law was nullified. To approve some portions of the law and not others — "the court realized that could cause a political nightmare," said Edward Steinman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law.

Pending an expedited appeal, the next battle between the mayor and the school board will be the March elections.

"We'll be supporting candidates in the March school board election who are committed to leading school reform," Villaraigosa said, and redirect resources to the classroom from what he called a bloated bureaucracy.

The reference to bloat was an echo of contentions by United Teachers Los Angeles, which is in an ongoing contract dispute with the school district.

UTLA leadership has been allied with Villaraigosa, but won't necessarily back the same candidates.

Union leader Joel Jordan said the decision undid "the most positive part of this law … the possibility of [the mayor's schools] helping to bring about much-needed reform."

There were parents on both sides of the litigation and many thousands more who want better schools.

"I am very happy that the system has worked," said Rosa Mendoza, who has two children at Locke High School and joined the district's lawsuit.

Voices

• "The statute makes drastic changes in the local governance of the LAUSD, giving the mayor a role that is unprecedented in California."
• "Neither the City Charter nor [the California Constitution] is satisfied by retaining an elected school board in name only, while transferring all of its authority over a substantial portion of the District to a different, appointed entity — the Mayor's partnership."
• "It appears that the Mayor's role in governing the LAUSD will frequently be incompatible with his obligations to the citizens of the City of Los Angeles as its Chief Executive Officer."

Judge Dzintra Janavs

"I am here and committed to working with all parties to educate the children of Greater Los Angeles — and in spite of whether [the law] was upheld or struck down, I am going to continue to do that."

David L. Brewer
L.A. Unified School District superintendent

"I've said since the day Antonio was elected that I'd have loved to get together … and would have welcomed his suggestions and his help and his ingenuity. But he chose to take a different path and that's a shame."

Julie Korenstein
School board member

"The ruling today of, 'We get to do our business the same way,' isn't a win for L.A. Better graduation, better allocation of resources, greater leadership … is the win we are looking for."

Monica Garcia
School board member