Los Angeles Unified School District, California

Los Angeles Unified School District
Los Angeles County, California
District details
Superintendent: Alberto M. Carvalho
# of school board members: 7
Website: Link

Los Angeles Unified School District is a school district in California.

Click on the links below to learn more about the school district's...

• Superintendent
• School board
• Elections
• Budget
• Teacher salaries
• Academic performance
• Students
• Staff
• Schools
• Contact information

Superintendent[edit]

This information is updated as we become aware of changes. Please contact us with any updates.

Alberto M. Carvalho is the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District. He was appointed superintendent in February 2022. Carvalho's previous career experience includes working as the superintendent of the Miami-Dade County Public School District.

^[1]

Past superintendents[edit]

• Megan K. Reilly was the interim superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District from July 1, 2021 until 2022. Reilly's previous career experience includes working as a deputy superintendent of the district, chief business officer for the Santa Clara County Office of Education and Los Angeles Unified School District, and in the federal government for 17 years in higher education and research.^[2]
• Austin Beutner was the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District from 2018 to 2021. Beutner's previous career experience included working as the publisher and CEO of the Los Angeles Times and as the first deputy mayor of Los Angeles.^[3][4]
• Michelle King was the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District from 2015 to 2018. King's previous career experience included working as a teacher, high school principal, and administrator in the district.^[5][6][7]
• Ramon C. Cortines was the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District from 2014 to 2015.^[8] Cortines' previous career experience included working as a school district administrator and as special advisor to former U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley.^[9]

School board[edit]

The Los Angeles Unified School District school board consists of seven members elected by district to four-year terms.

This officeholder information was last updated on May 14, 2024. Please contact us with any updates.

Elections[edit]

See also: Los Angeles Unified School District elections in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2024

Members of the Los Angeles Unified School District school board are elected to four-year terms. Three or four seats are up for election on a staggered basis every even-numbered year in November. Prior to the 2020 election, the school board was elected in the spring in odd-numbered years.

A general election is scheduled for November 5, 2024. A primary election was scheduled for March 5, 2024.

Join the conversation about school board politics[edit]

Stay up to date on school board politics!

Subscribe for a weekly roundup of the sharpest commentary and research from across the political spectrum with Ballotpedia's Hall Pass newsletter.

Email *

First Name *

Last Name

Please complete the Captcha above

Public participation in board meetings[edit]

The Los Angeles Unified School District school board maintains the following policy on public testimony during board meetings:^[10]

District map[edit]

Budget[edit]

The following statistics were published by the National Center for Education Statistics, which is a part of the U.S. Department of Education.^[12]

Teacher salaries[edit]

The following salary information was pulled from the district's teacher salary schedule. A salary schedule is a list of expected compensations based on variables such as position, years employed, and education level. It may not reflect actual teacher salaries in the district.

Academic performance[edit]

Each year, state and local education agencies use tests and other standards to assess student proficiency. Although the data below was published by the U.S. Department of Education, proficiency measurements are established by the states. As a result, proficiency levels are not comparable between different states and year-over-year proficiency levels within a district may not be comparable because states may change their proficiency measurements.^[16]

Students[edit]

Staff[edit]

Schools[edit]

Noteworthy events[edit]

2017: Board president charged with 3 felonies related to 2015 campaign donations[edit]

• 2017: Board president charged with 3 felonies related to 2015 campaign donations (click to expand)
  Los Angeles Unified Board of Education member Ref Rodriguez was charged with three felony counts of conspiracy, perjury, and procuring and offering a false or forged instrument and 25 misdemeanor counts of assumed-name contribution on September 13, 2017. The charges came after an investigation into donations to his 2015 campaign. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office alleged that Rodriguez contributed $24,250 to his campaign but represented that money as donations from 25 individuals.^[17] Rodriguez pleaded not guilty at his arraignment on October 24, 2017.^[18]

  According to the criminal complaint against him, Rodriguez cashed out a $26,000 business investment after he filed to run for the District 5 seat on the Los Angeles Board of Education in 2014. The complaint said that Rodriguez gave the $26,000 to his cousin, Elizabeth Tinajero Melendrez. Melendrez, who was a campaign volunteer, allegedly deposited the money into an account connected to Rodriguez's parents. The complaint said that Rodriguez's mother then used that money to pay family members and friends who had donated to Rodriguez's campaign.^[17]

  A formal accusation published by the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission on September 13, 2017, said that Rodriguez's mother convinced 25 people to donate to Rodriguez's campaign by promising to reimburse them. Those 25 people "gave between $775 and $1,100, for a total of $24,250," according to the Los Angeles Times. The formal accusation said that Rodriguez's campaign finance report from that time period showed $51,001 in individual donations. “However, nearly half of the reported funds were actually Rodriguez’s own money,” the formal accusation said.^[17]

  Rodriguez's personal contribution to his campaign at that time was listed as $1,100. Candidates are allowed to spend as much of their own money on their campaigns as they want, but they cannot present that money as contributions from others. That practice is considered political money laundering by the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission, as it “deprives the public of information about the true source of a candidate’s financial support.”^[17]

  "As I understand it, candidates fund their campaigns often," Daniel Nixon, Rodriguez's lawyer, said. "I think it’s a question of simply the details, the nuances, concerning how that takes place."^[17]

  Melendrez was charged with one felony count of conspiracy to commit assumed-name contribution and 25 misdemeanor counts of assumed-name contribution. In reaction to the charges, her lawyer said, “This is a harsh and draconian response to a minor alleged transgression.”^[17]

  The school district issued a statement from Rodriguez on September 13, 2017. “As the product of an immigrant family, nobody has more respect for the integrity of the American justice system than I do. I have cooperated with authorities and hope these issues will be resolved expeditiously and fairly,” Rodriguez said. “Above all, my commitment to the students, teachers, parents and families of Los Angeles remains unwavering.”^[17]

  According to the Los Angeles Times, the case is unusual because it involves a candidate rather than a donor and because it was not settled before it was revealed to the public. Rodriguez and Melendrez were notified of the results of the investigation in May 2017, but they did not reach a settlement with the ethics commission.^[17]

  Rodriguez stepped down from his position as board president on September 19, 2017, but he retained his seat on the board.^[19] He was under no legal obligation to step down as board president or to resign from the board, according to David Holmquist, general counsel for the school district. “To be accused of a crime does not preclude from being able to serve as a board member. He’s the sitting board member, the board president. We’re going to continue to treat him as such,” said Holmquist. “And he’ll retain all his rights with respect to that, unless and until he decides to do something.”^[20]

  “In order to allow the board to remain focused on the hard work ahead of us, I have decided to step aside as board President,” Rodriguez said in a statement on September 19, 2017. “I do not want to serve as a distraction to my colleagues, or to any of the other dedicated teachers, principals and employees who do the hard work of educating students every day.”^[19]

  The other six members of the board of education expressed surprise at the charges against Rodriguez. They said they had not known of the investigation when they voted to make him board president in July 2017. “Today’s news about our Board President, Dr. Ref Rodriguez — a longtime educator and advocate for kids — is unsettling,” said board member Nick Melvoin, who was elected to the board on May 16, 2017. “The serious allegations are not connected to the work of the Board or L.A. Unified; our focus today, as it is every day, has been on our students and school communities.”^[20]

  The election of Melvoin and Kelly Fitzpatrick-Gonez in May 2017 changed the board's majority. Prior to that election, a majority of the board was supported by the teachers union, but after the election it became a 4-3 majority supported by charter school associations for the first time, according to the Los Angeles Times. Rodriguez was a member of that majority.^[20] The board elected Mónica García, another member of the board's majority, as president of the board on September 26, 2017. García then named Melvoin vice president, as she had to vacate that position in order to become president.^[21]

  García, Melvoin, and Fitzpatrick-Gonez issued a joint statement on October 24, 2017, asking Rodriguez to take a leave of absence while his case was going on.^[22]

  “	Nobody should be tried in the press or the court of public opinion without having a fair hearing. But in order to keep making progress towards our goal of 100 percent graduation, we have asked Dr. Rodriguez to take a leave of absence from the board. As with any employee of the district who is accused of misconduct, this allows for a quicker resolution while enabling the district to continue its work.[11]	”
  —Mónica García, Kelly Fitzpatrick-Gonez, and Nick Melvoin (2017)[22]

  Rodriguez said he would not step down and that he was elected to serve a five-year term.^[22]

  “	I have dedicated my life to provide better educational opportunities to all students in our communities. I have worked with parents, community members and students to tear down barriers to success, and together, we have proven that grassroots policy-making is alive and well. I am a dedicated public servant and I have faith in the truth. I believe in the integrity of our justice system where I will respond to the allegations. In the interim, I wish to thank those who continue to believe that together, we can transform schools and communities.[11]	”
  —Ref Rodriguez (2017)[22]

  Rodriguez ultimately resigned on July 23, 2018, after pleading guilty to a felony conspiracy charge and four of the misdemeanor charges. According to the plea agreement, Rodriguez received a sentence of three years probation and 60 days of community service.^[23]

2017: Charter school network files conflict of interest complaint against board member[edit]

• 2017: Charter school network files conflict of interest complaint against board member (click to expand)
  Partnerships to Uplift Communities (PUC Schools), a charter school network Los Angeles Unified Board of Education member Ref Rodriguez co-founded in 2004, filed a conflict of interest complaint against Rodriguez with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) on October 13, 2017.^[24] With regard to the felony charges against Rodriguez, the FPPC closed the complaint without prejudice on October 20, 2017. The FPPC's communications director said it was policy to not open a complaint case if there was a pending felony case.^[25]

  The conflict of interest complaint had no apparent connection to the felony case against him, according to the Los Angeles Times.^[25][24]

  The conflict of interest complaint named $285,000 in payments that Rodriguez authorized to be paid from PUC Schools accounts in 2014. A majority of the payments questioned in the complaint went to Partners for Developing Futures, a nonprofit for which Rodriguez served as chief executive, according to the Los Angeles Times.^[24]

  PUC Schools said the payments were a potential conflict of interest because Rodriguez appeared to be on both sides of the transaction. Officials for the charter school network said they discovered the payments while fulfilling a public records request from the Los Angeles Times. An attorney hired by PUC Schools to investigate the payments said he found little or no evidence of services provided to PUC Schools in exchange for the payments.^[24]

  “As soon as we uncovered this information, we launched an internal investigation,” said Manuel Ponce Jr., chairman of the board of directors for PUC Schools. “We are taking this very seriously, and our commitments to our students, families and schools remains our highest priority.”^[24]

  According to the Los Angeles Times, the conflict of interest complaint questioned 14 checks signed by Rodriguez that were made out to Partners for Developing Futures. Each of those checks was less than $50,000, which was below the threshold that would have required authorization from PUC Schools' board of directors. The checks were designated as payments for expenses at six charter schools that Rodriguez oversaw as part of his position at PUC Schools.^[24]

  The signature or stamp of Jacqueline Elliot, the other co-founder of PUC Schools, was also included on a majority of the 14 checks. Elliot did not comment on the presence of her signature on those checks, but she said she trusted Rodriguez. “You’re talking about someone who’s created opportunities for thousands of children and who demonstrated a commitment day in and day out to acting in the best interest of students,” said Elliot. “Ref’s track record was unquestioned.”^[24]

  Elliot was one of the PUC Schools officials who filed the FPPC complaint. “It is my obligation to do the right thing for everyone I serve,” she said. Rodriguez did not comment on the conflict of interest complaint.^[24]

  After the conflict of interest complaint was filed, the Los Angeles Unified School District sent a notice to PUC Schools, asking why it took the charter network years to report its allegations against Rodriguez. The notice also alleged "fiscal mismanagement, conflicts of interest, failure to provide information and poor governance and leadership," according to the Los Angeles Times.^[26]

  PUC Schools released a statement saying that its leaders had “alerted the district about money transfers from PUC to the nonprofit as soon as they were uncovered.” Elliot and Ponce also denied any wrongdoing.^[26]

  The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) sent a second letter to PUC Schools in December 2017 claiming that PUC Schools had not provided district officials with documents requested in October and expressing concern "about the pattern of PUC neglecting to provide comprehensive responses and accurate information" to school board officials. PUC Schools spokeswoman Naush Boghossian said charter school leaders were cooperating with the LAUSD and had submitted documents the district claimed were missing.^[27]

2017: Board members receive 174% raise[edit]

• 2017: Board members receive 174% raise (click to expand)
  Members of the Los Angeles Unified Board of Education who did not have any other employment received a 174% raise, increasing their $45,637 a year salaries to $125,000 a year. Those who received payment from other employment saw their board salaries raise slightly less than double, increasing from $26,437 a year to $50,000 a year.^[28]

  The new full-time salaries went to six of the seven members on the board. As of September 22, 2017, Mónica García was the only member who had other employment. She announced in September 2017, however, that she planned to resign from her job with Los Angeles County and serve full-time on the board.^[29]

  The new salaries were approved by the LAUSD Board of Education Compensation Review Committee on July 10, 2017, and took effect in early September 2017. Compensation for board of education members was required to be reviewed every five years under the Los Angeles City Charter.^[28]

  The compensation review committee was made up of seven members outside of the board of education. The 2017 committee had two members appointed by Mayor Eric Garcetti, two members appointed by City Council President Herb Wesson Jr., and one member appointed by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chair Mark Ridley-Thomas. The other two members were appointed by the mayor of Gardena on behalf of six cities served by the board of education and by the mayor of Huntington Park on behalf of another five cities served by the board of education.^[28][30][31]

  The 2017 raise was the first time in 10 years that the board of education received a raise. When compensation was set in 2007, the compensation review committee believed that board of education members should receive the same pay as first-year teachers, according to the Los Angeles Times. In 2012, the committee made no changes to board of education salaries.^[28]

  Board of education member George J. McKenna III appealed to the 2017 compensation review committee for a raise along with former members Monica Ratliff and Yolie Flores. Flores asked the committee to raise board of education salaries to be equal with the $191,000 annual salaries of Los Angeles City Council members.^[28]

2017: Superintendent King's contract extended[edit]

• 2017: Superintendent King's contract extended (click to expand)
  The Los Angeles Unified Board of Education voted 6-1 to extend Superintendent Michelle King's contract through June 2020. It was scheduled to end in June 2018.^[6]

  Board President Steve Zimmer and member George J. McKenna III praised King's performance. McKenna said the district needed leadership stability. "The performance of the superintendent has been extraordinary in ways that we expected and ways that we haven’t expected," Zimmer said. "We really do see this district on the right track and we want to endorse that track."^[6]

  Mónica García cast the one dissenting vote on the extension. She said it was because of the timing of the vote, since new members were going to be sworn in to office in July 2017, rather than because of King's performance. "I appreciate Dr. King, her leadership, her work and her commitment to the district," Garcia said in a statement. "I cannot support the board action today. We will have new board members in three weeks, and it is my view that she is best affirmed by that new board."^[6]

  Nick Melvoin and Kelly Fitzpatrick-Gonez, the board's two members-elect who replaced two members who voted in favor of the extension, did not comment on the vote.^[6]

2017: Board votes 4-3 to support state charter school regulation bills[edit]

• 2017: Board votes 4-3 to support state charter school regulation bills (click to expand)
  The Los Angeles Unified Board of Education approved a resolution on April 18, 2017, to fund lobbying efforts to support three bills in the California State Legislature that relate to charter schools. Board President Steve Zimmer and members George J. McKenna III, Scott Mark Schmerelson, and Richard A. Vladovic voted in favor of the resolution, while Mónica García, Ref Rodriguez, and Monica Ratliff voted against. The 4-3 vote was split between those supported by the teachers union, who voted in favor of the resolution, and those supported by charter school associations.^[32]

  The three bills were introduced to the state legislature on February 17, 2017. Two of the bills, AB 1478 and AB 1360, sought to require charter schools to follow state and federal guidelines. AB 1478 would have required charter schools to follow the California Public Records Act for open meetings and records, while AB 1360 sought to require charter schools to follow guidelines surrounding admission, suspension, and expulsion.^[33] AB 1478 was ordered inactive on May 30, 2017. AB 1360 was passed by both chambers of the state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on October 13, 2017.^[34][35]

  The third bill, SB 808, sought to remove charter schools' ability to appeal to the county or state if a school board rejected a charter petition. The bill was pulled from consideration for the 2017 legislative session on April 17, 2017, but the Los Angeles Unified Board of Education included it in its resolution.^[32][33]

  United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) and the California Federation of Teachers came out in support of all three bills. The California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) said it would support measures to make charter schools more transparent, but it said it would oppose SB 808.^[33] Richard Garcia, director of elections communications for CCSA, called SB 808 "one of the most aggressive anti-charter bills that the state has seen," according to the LA School Report.^[33]

  Nick Melvoin and Kelly Fitzpatrick-Gonez, who won seats on the board in the general election on May 16, 2017, said they were against the resolution passed by the Los Angeles Unified Board of Education. “I firmly believe that we must have comprehensive and meaningful accountability for all charter schools and we must ensure that they serve all students, but I oppose this legislative package as currently written,” said Fitzpatrick-Gonez.^[32]

  Melvoin called the resolution disappointing and said it was politically motivated.^[32]

  “	This is not an all kids resolution; rather, it stokes the flames of this ‘us vs. them’ rhetoric. Given the assault on public education from the Trump Administration, we need leaders who stand with all public school families. This resolution directs LAUSD’s lobbyists to spend less time securing necessary funding for teachers, the arts, and other basic services and more time waging political fights.[11]	”
  —Nick Melvoin (2017)[32]

  McKenna, who proposed the resolution to the board, said he wanted to protect the district. “It is a fact that the loss of enrollment is a hardship on this district. There are those who unashamedly, unabashedly said their intent is to take 50 percent of our students and they are competing against us," said McKenna. He also said he was worried about the district's finances. “We will be economically insolvent if in fact we continue to allow and help others come in to get students and come into our space,” he said.^[32]

  In a survey conducted by 89.3 KPCC in February 2017, Zimmer said he supported transparency in finances and governance for public schools.^[36]

  “	Whether you are a public school, charter, magnet, traditional neighborhood school, the definition of a public school is that it serves every child that comes through the schoolhouse door. It is also true that if you are a public school, you must have transparency with your finances and you must have transparency with your governance. We work very, very hard every day to make that happen in our Charter Schools Division. There is always room for improvement, and I will continue to advocate for us to get stronger and stronger in this area.[11]	”
  —Steve Zimmer (2017)[36]

  Imelda Padilla, who lost the race for the open District 6 seat to Fitzpatrick-Gonez, refused to take a position on the board resolution when contacted by the Los Angeles Times. ^[37] In a candidate forum held on May 10, 2017, Padilla stated, "Those independent charters have been hiding behind their private operator status from being able to tell us what they do with our taxpayer dollars, and I think that’s a problem... So we do need to pass some policies about them being more transparent."^[38]

2017: Los Angeles charter school network investigated by authorities[edit]

• 2017: Los Angeles charter school network investigated by authorities (click to expand)
  A charter organization called the Celerity Educational Group was served a warrant to search its administrative offices by the U.S. Attorney General's Office in Los Angeles on January 25, 2017, in connection to an investigation into possible fraud and fiscal mismanagement. Six other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the U.S. Department of Education, were also involved in the investigation, which started after the Los Angeles Unified School District's inspector general conducted an investigation into similar allegations in 2016.^[39][40] The offices of Celerity Global Development, a nonprofit with governance power over the Celerity Educational Group, and the home Vielka McFarlane, Celerity Educational Group's founder and CEO, were also investigated.^[41]

  “I don’t know what information the U.S. attorney is relying on, but the district’s inspector general has conducted a thorough and ongoing investigation into this matter, and I expect that some of that work led to this,” said David Holmquist, general counsel for Los Angeles Unified.^[39]

  The Celerity Educational Group oversaw seven charter schools in Southern California, six of which were in the Los Angeles Unified School District in the 2016-2017 school year. All of its schools used public funds but were privately operated. A spokesperson for Celerity Educational Group released the following statement after the investigation:^[39][40]

  “	Celerity has been informed of this investigation and looks forward to cooperatively addressing any concerns raised by the investigating agencies. Regardless, Celerity will continue to pursue the high educational standards of which it has always been proud.[11]	”
  —Stefan Friedman, Celerity Educational Group (January 2017)[40]

  Los Angeles Unified's inspector general began investigating the Celerity Educational Group in response to the group's petition to open two new charter schools in 2015. District officials raised concerns about the group's governance structure under Celerity Global Development and its financial transactions, such as the CEO charging the group's credit card for restaurant, chauffeur, and out-of-state travel expenses. The report from district officials led the Los Angeles Unified Board of Education to reject the group's petition despite approving similar petitions in the past. The Celerity Educational Group denied any wrongdoing and appealed to the California State Board of Education, which approved the opening of the schools.^[39][41]

  In October 2016, the Celerity Educational Group petitioned the board of education to renew the charters of two of its schools, both of which had tested higher in math and English than neighborhood schools. Again, the board rejected the petition, listing similar concerns about the group's finances and governance structure. Specific concerns surrounded changes to the group's bylaws, which gave oversight of its charter schools to Celerity Global Development. District officials said they did not have a full picture of the relationship between the two organizations and had concerns about lack of transparency. Though the district had asked for more information about Celerity Global Development's leadership, the organization did not respond by the October 2016 board meeting. The vote was unanimous with one member—Ref Rodriguez—abstaining.^[39][40]

  Rodriguez said he abstained from the vote because he thought the charter schools could stay open if they separated from Celerity Educational Group. Though district staff had proposed his suggestion to Celerity Educational Group, the group had declined the separation.^[40]

  Celerity Educational Group appealed the board's rejection to the Los Angeles County Office of Education, but the county did not act on the appeal. The group also appealed to the California State Board of Education, which declined to renew the school charters at a hearing on May 11, 2017. State Board of Education members said they had lost confidence in the Celerity Educational Group and were concerned about its finances, governance structure, and possible conflicts of interest.^[39][40][42]

2016: District prepares for $1.46 billion deficit[edit]

• 2016: District prepares for $1.46 billion deficit (click to expand)
  The Los Angeles Unified School District notified the Los Angeles County Office of Education and the state of California on December 15, 2016, that it faced a cumulative deficit of $1.46 billion through the 2018-2019 school year. The deficit required the district to register as qualified.^[43]

  “Qualified means that we may not meet our financial obligations in the subsequent two years,” Los Angeles Unified Chief Financial Officer Megan Reilly said. She said that registering as qualified was better than needing to register as negative. Despite the estimated deficit, the district had the chance to make its obligations, according to Reilly.^[43]

  Six months later, when the board passed its three-year budget with a 5-1 vote and one abstention on June 20, 2017, the cumulative deficit had decreased. The budgets for the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years were balanced, and the budget for the 2019-2020 school year had a projected deficit of $422 million.^[44]

  
  After the district registered as qualified, Reilly said the deficit was not due to mismanagement and pointed out its AAA credit rating. She said that though the district's enrollment was decreasing, which meant lower per-pupil funding from the state, its fixed costs, such as utilities and payments into CalPERS and CalSTRS retirement funds, were not decreasing. The retirement payments equalled nearly $780 million a year, according to Reilly, and utility costs were expected to increase by $24 million, despite reducing water consumption by 13 percent, according to the district’s director of architectural and engineering services Christos Chrysiliou.^[45][46]

  A large portion of the projected deficit came from costs associated with serving low-income students, foster kids, and English learners. In the summer of 2016, the California Department of Education said the district had to outline more clearly how it would serve those students. The district submitted a realignment plan with the Department of Education in December 2016, which allowed the projected deficit to fall from over $1 billion to under $500 million.^[47]

  In February 2017, Superintendent Michelle King proposed the district reduce its administrative staff, which was recommended by an Independent Financial Review Panel in November 2015. “The district’s loss of 100,000 students would indicate that the district staff would need to be reduced by about 10,000 staff, including administrators, classified and certificated personnel, for a savings of about $500 million per year,” the report by the panel stated.^[45]

  King recommended nearly 1,600 administrators be put on notice of their contracts' possible termination, and the board approved the proposal on February 14, 2017. The proposal included “all non-school-based certificated administrators, confidential employees, and supervisory employees.” Principals, deans, and counselors with permanent school site contracts were not included. By law, district employees had to be notified by March 15, 2017, of potential layoffs.^[45]

  “We know we have declining enrollment and a federal impact and other cost drivers such as special education and health and welfare costs, and it is important to note that we must be fiscally responsible and that we did get recommendations on how to do that,” said King.^[45]

  Board President Steve Zimmer said he doubted the district would follow through on the 2017 layoffs. In 2016, approximately 1,700 administrators were notified of possible layoffs, but all of those notices were rescinded.^[45][48] In June 2017, 115 of the notified administrators were informed that their contracts would not be renewed. They were offered other positions in the district.^[49]

2016: Board passes resolutions following presidential election[edit]

• 2016: Board passes resolutions following presidential election (click to expand)

  See also: School boards pass sanctuary resolutions and Sanctuary policy preemption conflicts between the federal and local governments

  Sanctuary policy conflicts

  Los Angeles Unified School District was one of 15 districts tracked by Ballotpedia that debated sanctuary policies as of October 16, 2017. Learn more about these debates on Ballopedia's coverage of sanctuary jurisdictions  »

  The Los Angeles Unified Board of Education voted on November 15, 2016, to reaffirm the district's safe zone policy for students residing in the country without legal permission. The board also adopted a resolution pledging to “continue to protect the data and identities of any student, family member, or school employee who may be adversely affected by any future policies or executive action that results in the collection of any personally identifiable information.”^[50][51]

  The resolutions were adopted in reaction to four consecutive days of student walkouts following the presidential election of Donald Trump (R) and concerns voiced by the district's community. In a speech on immigration in August 2016, Trump said, "According to federal data, there are at least 2 million, 2 million, think of it, criminal aliens now inside of our country, 2 million people criminal aliens. We will begin moving them out day one. As soon as I take office. Day one. In joint operation with local, state, and federal law enforcement."^[52] After he won the election, Trump announced plans to remove them in his first 100 days in office.^[50] He also pledged to cancel federal funding for cities with sanctuary policies. Sanctuary cities have enacted policies that limit the involvement of local officials in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Examples of sanctuary policies include restricting local law enforcement from arresting individuals who violate federal immigration law and prohibiting law enforcement inquiries into a person's immigration status.^[53][54]

  One in 10 residents in Los Angeles County was estimated to be residing in the country without legal permission, according to a study conducted by the University of Southern California. Due to the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, the Los Angeles Unified School District was required to educate students residing in the country without legal permission if they lived within the district's borders. Board President Steve Zimmer said he did not expect that the district's obligation to those students would change under the new administration.^[50]

  The Los Angeles Unified Board of Education's vote on November 15, 2016, reaffirmed the district's commitment to the Plyler v. Doe ruling and reminded staff of a February 2016 board decision to not allow U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents onto district property without approval from the superintendent.^[50] After that decision, Virginia Kice, a spokesperson for ICE, said that ICE agents would not request access to schools as they were considered sensitive sites.^[55]

  In reaction to concerns of how student data collected through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) would be used, the board unanimously voted to protect student data “to the fullest extent provided by the law.” The two programs were created by the Obama administration to shield students and some workers residing in the country without legal permission. The board additionally directed Superintendent Michelle King to send a letter to Trump "affirming the American ideals that are celebrated in Los Angeles.”^[50]

  The board passed another two resolutions on December 13, 2016. One resolution asked President Barack Obama (D) to “issue an executive order prohibiting the use of information derived from the DACA application and participation process for purposes other than originally intended, including for the purpose of removal or deportation.” It also asked the president to pardon “civil immigration violations for young immigrants that participated in DACA.”^[56]

  The second resolution asked Trump's nominees for secretary of education and attorney general to "directly affirm the Obama administration’s guidance to states and local education authorities regarding the dignity and humanity of transgender students and access to safe restrooms, locker rooms and all school facilities.”^[56]

  United Teachers Los Angeles President Alex Caputo-Pearl and regional director of the California Charter Schools Association Sarah Angel voiced support of the board's resolutions, but approval of the board's actions was not unanimous among the state's education organizations. Larry Sand, president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network, wrote an editorial piece in the National Review that opposed the board's resolutions. Sand wrote, "While Trump has indeed made some questionable comments about immigration, certain educators and a compliant mainstream media have blown things way out of proportion and worried many children needlessly."^[56][57]

2016: District announces opening of extended support sites[edit]

• 2016: District announces opening of extended support sites (click to expand)
  Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Michelle King announced on December 5, 2016, that the district had opened extended support sites and set up a hotline for students anxious about the presidential election results. President Donald Trump (R) ran on a campaign promise to deport immigrants residing in the U.S. illegally and to build a wall along the country's border with Mexico. The district's student population was 74 percent Latino for the 2016-2017 school year, and teachers said they spent class time reassuring their students that they were safe at school.^[58]

2016: After School Satan Clubs request same district access as Good News Club[edit]

• 2016: After School Satan Clubs request same district access as Good News Club (click to expand)
  The Los Angeles Satanic Temple applied in August 2016 to host After School Satan Clubs in up to 47 elementary schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District. The Satan Clubs offer a science-based curriculum that emphasize skepticism, rationalism, and free inquiry and do not actually worship Satan, according to Ali Kellog, the chapter head of the Los Angeles Satanic Temple. Kellog said the group wanted to offer alternatives for students whose schools rent space to the Good News Club, an after school club in which Bible verses and Christian values are taught.^[59]

  “I think the general public would be surprised to find out that there are 47 Good News Clubs at their public schools in Los Angeles,” said Kellog.^[59]

  Organizers of the Good News Club said they did not believe the Satanic Temple would start the After School Satan Clubs. Instead, they said they believed the Satanic Temple requested space for the clubs in order to get the Good News Club ousted from the schools. "They came up with a club so preposterous that people will not like it and get it thrown out and we may get thrown out along with them,” said John Luck, the project manager of Good News Across America and the director of development for the Child Evangelism Fellowship.^[59]

  Despite their skepticism about the Satanic Temple's motives, organizers of the Good News Club said they did not have a problem with the schools renting space to the After School Satan Club. “If they want to start a club, the After School Satan Club has the right to be at the school. I just doubt that many parents will want to send their children to such a club,” said Luck.^[59]

  Other organizations were not as tolerant of the After School Satan Club. More than 10,000 signatures were collected on a petition that requested the schools deny the club's request. The petition was sponsored by the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Property and Family.^[59]

  In October 2016, the Los Angeles Unified School District denied the club from one of their elementary school campuses.^[60]

2016: District behind state average in assessments[edit]

• 2016: District behind state average in assessments (click to expand)
  A total of 39% of students in the Los Angeles Unified School District met or surpassed English standards, and 29% of students met or surpassed math standards, according to results from the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress for the 2015-2016 school year. The district gained four and six percentage points in English and math, respectively, over its 2014-2015 school year results—the first year the test was administered.^[61]

  Despite the gains, the district lagged behind the state average of 48% of students meeting or surpassing English standards and 37% meeting or surpassing math standards. LAUSD school board member Ref Rodriguez said he wanted to see higher results.^[61] "Incremental doesn’t work for me, and it doesn’t work for kids," said Rodriguez.^[61]

2016: First gender-neutral bathroom in district met with protests[edit]

• 2016: First gender-neutral bathroom in district met with protests (click to expand)

  See also: Transgender bathroom access laws in the United States

  In response to a student petition circulated by the Gay Straight Alliance and signed by over 700 people, the Santee Education Complex opened the Los Angeles Unified School District's first gender-neutral bathroom in April 2016. Though Martin Gomez, the school's principal, expressed pride for his students' initiative, other adults were not as comfortable with the set up. Some expressed concern for students getting bullied or sexually harassed in the new bathroom, and some protested the bathroom's creation.^[62][63]

  On April 19, 2016, members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested outside the Santee school building, holding signs that said, "Homo Sex Is Sin.” A fight between the students and protestors followed, according to the Los Angeles Times. No one was injured in the altercation, and police did not charge or site anyone.^[62]

  Members of the Westboro Baptist Church were expected to return the next day, but they did not. Instead, outside the school rainbow flags and signs reading "Keep Calm, It’s Just a Toilet” were carried as part of a peace rally meant to show support for the students. It was organized by Ron Gochez, a former teacher at the Santee Education Complex, and the political group Union del Barrio.^[62]

  Gomez published a statement in support of his students on April 20, 2016. “Yesterday, a small group of adults unsuccessfully attempted to discredit the brave actions of our students by protesting against the school’s recently approved gender-neutral restrooms,” the statement read. “Above all, we want to ensure the safety of our students despite outside factors and influencers.”^[62]

  In response to parents' concerns about bullying and sexual harassment in the gender-neutral bathroom, school officials set up a texting hotline for students to report misconduct.^[62]

2016: LAUSD sued by California Charter School Association[edit]

• 2016: LAUSD sued by California Charter School Association (click to expand)
  The California Charter Schools Association filed a lawsuit in January 2016 against the Los Angeles Unified School District and Superintendent Michelle King due to the allocation of funds from a 2008 bond measure. The bond originally called for $450 million to be allocated for charter school construction projects, but the district reduced that amount to $224 million. Attorneys for the association said those cuts were unlawful. The lawsuit also included a request that the district be forced to comply with the California Public Records Act, as documents related to the reallocation of funds had not been made available to the association.^[64][65]

  The district's attorneys said officials for the district had the authority to re-allocate funds. The board moved $600 million from the bond measure in November 2015 to help make schools more accessible for disabled students. District officials said accessibility for disabled students was a priority for the district. It was still under federal supervision after failing to meet requirements for disabled students in the 1990s.^[65]

  A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled in 2017 that the ballot statement approving the bonds did not commit a specified dollar amount to charter school construction. The charter school association filed an appeal of the judge's decision but dropped the appeal in April 2018, citing improved relations with the school district, including the creation of new platforms for public access to district data and plans to enter into multi-year facilities agreements for charter public schools.^[66][67]

  The charter school association said,

  “

  At this juncture, and as a gesture of goodwill, CCSA has decided to discontinue pursuit of its two facilities-related lawsuits against the District. ... We are committed to working with our members and the District to build upon the positive momentum that now exists to craft the reasonable, common sense solutions needed to ensure that every public school student—both traditional and charter—has a stable, suitable place to learn.[11]

  ”

2016: King takes over as superintendent after Cortines[edit]

• 2016: King takes over as superintendent after Cortines (click to expand)
  Michelle King, who served as the district's deputy superintendent under former Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines, was named the next superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District on January 11, 2016. She had acted as interim superintendent for one month, since Cortines, despite being offered an extension on his contract, stepped down from the position in December 2015.^[5]

  On May 12, 2015, the Los Angeles Unified Board of Education voted unanimously to extend Cortines' contract for one more year, setting it to expire after the 2015-2016 school year.^[68] In June 2015, however, Cortines announced he would only stay until December 2015.^[69]

  When the board first announced the extension of Cortines' contract, members Mónica Ratliff and Steve Zimmer praised his work with the district. “He came out of retirement to save the district, and I believe he’s done that,” said Ratliff in support of Cortines' work since taking on the role in October 2014.^[68] Zimmer said, “I believe he sets the bar for public service both here and across the nation.”^[68]

  Michelle King automatically became the interim superintendent of the district once Cortines stepped down. As the second top administrator at the time, she took on the role in his absence. The school board did not make any official action to appoint her as the interim superintendent. The board did, however, vote unanimously to make her superintendent on January 11, 2016. “We didn't know the long and winding road would lead us to our own door when we started. It was the right road and the right door,” said Zimmer.^[5]

2015: District closes schools in response to threat[edit]

• 2015: District closes schools in response to threat (click to expand)

  See also: United States school shootings, 1990-present

  The Los Angeles Unified School District closed all of its schools—a total of over 900—on December 15, 2015, after the district received a "credible threat" of violence. This was the first time the district had closed system-wide since 1994, when an earthquake caused it to keep kids at home. The threat was later determined to be a hoax by the FBI.^[70]

  The threat was sent by email to members of the Los Angeles Unified Board of Education. It involved "backpacks and packages left at campuses," according to the Los Angeles Times. Authorities searched all of the district's schools before the threat was discredited. Schools were re-opened on December 16, 2015. The school's police force was helped by the Los Angeles Police Department and the FBI.^[70]

  

  New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio

  Before the threat was determined to be a hoax, Superintendent Ramon Cortines spoke in support of closing the schools. “I think it’s important to take this precaution based on what has happened recently and what has happened in the past,” Cortines said, alluding to the 14 people who were killed in a terrorist attack in San Bernardino earlier in the month. Cortines said the threat was made to students at many schools. “What we are doing today is no different than what we normally do except that we are doing it in a mass way,” he explained.^[70]

  

  Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti

  The New York City Department of Education received the same threat as LAUSD. Officials in that district, however, did not close the schools. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) said the threat was “so generic, so outlandish” that it couldn’t be taken seriously, according to the Los Angeles Times. De Blasio further said, “It would be a huge disservice to our nation to close down our school system.”^[70]

  Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Police Chief Charlie Beck defended LAUSD's decision to close its schools. Beck said it was "irresponsible" to criticize the district's decision given the information they had at the time. “Southern California has been through a lot in the past few weeks. Should we put our children through the same thing?” Beck said.^[70]

  Rep. Brad Sherman (D-30) said the email threat did not follow the normal patterns of jihadist writing, but that the email was specific enough to Southern California to not be discredited immediately. “I don’t know whether this was sent by a radical Islamic jihadist or somebody who had an anti-Islamic agenda or just a prankster,” Sherman said.^[70]

2015: Cortines writes to Gov. Brown[edit]

• 2015: Cortines writes to Gov. Brown (click to expand)

  

  California Gov. Jerry Brown (D)

  Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines sent a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in May 2015, imploring the state government to spend more money on education. The state was in the process of finalizing the budget for the year, and LAUSD did not know how much money it had for its fiscal year starting July 1, 2015, until those numbers were released from the state.^[71]

  In addition to asking the state for a set timeline to better enable school districts to plan their yearly budget, Cortines told Gov. Brown that current funding levels "have proven to be insufficient.” The superintendent also listed the increased costs LAUSD would have to pay during the 2015-2016 school year due to state mandates. One example of this was a pension reform mandate to make such systems more financially sound. Due to this mandate, LAUSD's teacher pension contributions increased by 28%.^[71]

  Cortines told Gov. Brown that if the district did not receive the funding it needed, adult education in the district would be severely cut. Letters were sent to 261 adult education teachers earlier in 2015 notifying them that they would be let go if the district did not receive enough funding.^[71]

  Soon after the letter was sent, Gov. Brown announced the revised budget would include an additional $3.1 billion for education for the 2015-2016 school year. According to the Los Angeles school district, the extra funding covered the district's 2015-2016 budget deficit.^[72]

  In response to the funding announcement, Cortines said, "The governor’s commitments to education and career preparation are strategic investments in California’s future. Today’s announcement of increased financial support for schools will help improve the lives of students in the Los Angeles area. We will prioritize these new resources to make our students college and career-ready.”^[72]

2015: UTLA involved in state lawsuit[edit]

• 2015: UTLA involved in state lawsuit (click to expand)
  StudentsFirst filed a lawsuit against several teachers unions, including the California Teachers Association and United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) in 2015. The lawsuit also named three superintendents, including Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines and those from the West Contra Costa Unified School District and the Arcadia Unified School District.^[73]

  In the lawsuit, two LAUSD teachers and two others from school districts in California said that their First Amendment rights had been violated because they had not been allowed to join their teachers unions without allowing those unions to use some of their paid dues on political activities. The teachers asserted that they should be able to join their unions without supporting the unions' political activities, which they may oppose.^[73]

  At the time the lawsuit was filed, California law did not require teachers to join unions, but they were required to pay agency fees to cover costs associated with contract negotiations. Full membership dues cost 30% to 40% more than agency fees, and the additional funds could be used by the union to pay for political activities. In order to opt out of paying for political activities, teachers had to forego being full union members. The lawsuit alleged that requiring teachers to opt out of full membership could have "significant adverse consequences," as being a full member could lead to insurance and disability benefits as well as legal representation.^[73]

  "The 1st Amendment does not tolerate this unequal treatment based on a teacher's political views," said an attorney handling the case.^[73]

  Jeff Freitas, secretary treasurer for the California Federation of Teachers called the lawsuit "yet another in the endless string of anti-union, anti-teacher lawsuits that pretend to protect worker rights by undermining the most important organization that defends worker rights."^[73]

  The lawsuit was rejected by a federal district judge in September 2015.^[74]

2015: Superintendent accused of sexual misconduct[edit]

• 2015: Superintendent accused of sexual misconduct (click to expand)
  A lawsuit filed in February 2015 charged Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines with sexual misconduct. This lawsuit was the third of its kind filed by Scot Graham, who was initially hired as the district's Director of Real Estate in 2000. In his previous lawsuits he accused Cortines of making sexual advances toward him, but in this latest lawsuit, Graham further revealed actions and comments Cortines made against other district leaders, including chief lawyer for the district David Holmquist and board member Monica Garcia.^[75]

  Neither of the previous lawsuits advanced to court proceedings. Cortines denied any wrongdoing both times, though he did admit that he and Graham did share “consensual spontaneous adult behavior.”^[75]

  In his third lawsuit, Graham added the district as a defendant with Cortines. He said the district failed to investigate his previous claims before hiring Cortines as superintendent for a third time in October 2014. He said that created a work atmosphere of "ongoing fear of Cortines."^[75]

  "This is simply a frivolous refiling of the same allegations. The details included in this complaint are intended to do nothing more than generate sensational headlines, and needlessly subject current and former leaders at the district to baseless personal attacks. The District will vigorously defend against these claims as it has done with the last two lawsuits alleging the same causes of action," Holmquist said in a statement.^[75]

  Rob Hennig, Graham's lawyer, disagreed. "The issue is very simple, as Mr. Graham’s claims of sexual harassment have never been adjudicated, and the district has yet to conduct an independent, objective investigation of Mr. Graham’s claims," said Hennig.^[75]

  Hennig said the third lawsuit centers on Graham's distress since Cortines rejoined the district. According to Graham's spokesman Herndon Graddick, Graham was diagnosed with a stress-related seizure disorder.^[75]

  In 2016, Graham resigned his job in the school district and settled his lawsuit for $93,000.^[76]

2015: Teachers union contract negotiations[edit]

• 2015: Teachers union contract negotiations (click to expand)
  On February 12, 2015, teachers in nearly every school in the district staged a short protest, and United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) rejected the district's most recent labor contract offer. The union demanded an 8.5% salary increase and smaller class sizes. The district offered a 5% salary increase retroactive to July 1, 2014, a 9% increase in minimum salary for teachers in the first year and $13 million used to lower class sizes. The difference between the two parties came to approximately $800 million, according to the district.^[77][78]

  

  “These people have been the heroes of education for the past eight years,” said UTLA President Alex Caputo-Pearl at a press conference just before the union formally rejected the offer. According to Caputo-Pearl, 3,000 classes in the district contain more than 45 students.^[77]

  "The things we are demanding—lower class sizes, fully staffed schools and fair compensation—are not radical. They are necessary. School employees have been breaking their backs to make up for a lack of staffing and resources at schools, but it’s too much to sustain. Now’s the time to turn this around,” added Caputo-Pearl.^[77]

  UTLA originally demanded a 10% raise in salary, lowered it to 9%, and then to 8.5%. It was the only union who had not approved a new contract with the district as of February 2015. The other unions tied to the district accepted a 2% salary increase.^[78]

  Superintendent Ramon Cortines said he was disappointed in UTLA's rejection, calling the district's offer "responsible."^[78]

  “We are dealing with a budget that has had a deficit for three years and we are trying to balance it. Again, we must learn to live within our means as we preserve vital and necessary educational services for our students,” said Cortines.^[78]

  Asking for a mediator

  The district and the union next met for negotiations on February 18, 2015, but they left at an impasse. With a significant gap between the two sides on compensation after 18 bargaining sessions, the two groups decided to ask the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to appoint a mediator for the next round of negotiations. PERB had to first affirm the negotiations were deadlocked before appointing a mediator. If a mediator had not helped the two parties come to an agreement, a fact-finding panel would have recommended terms of settlement. If that had also failed to work, the teachers in the district might have gone on strike.^[79][80]

  "Making Our Stand"

  In the meantime, UTLA held a downtown rally called "Making Our Stand at Grand" on February 26, 2015, in order to show their resolve.^[81] Thousands of teachers gathered in front of Los Angeles City Hall to rally for a new contract. Before the rally began, Cortines issued a statement telling the teachers the district's latest offer was still on the table.^[82]

  Teacher layoffs

  Before meetings with the PERB mediator began, the Los Angeles Board of Education voted 5-2 to approve more than 600 teacher layoffs as part of a “Fiscal Stabilization Plan.” Board President Richard A. Vladovic and board member Bennett Kayser voted against the plan. The layoffs were part of the cuts and new spending decisions the board made in order to balance the 2015-2016 budget, which faced a $113 million deficit, according to the district's Chief Financial Officer Megan Reilly.^[83] The final number of layoffs were determined as the budget was finalized.^[84]

  “I would hate to think these are being put forward as a way to push back against the righteous anger, passion and frustration that were coming out at the rally downtown at Grand Park,” Caputo-Pearl told the board in response to the layoff plan.^[85]

  Boycotting mandatory meetings

  In their next effort to push for higher pay, teachers began boycotting mandatory faculty meetings, despite warnings from the district that they would not be paid for the time they missed. The meetings were scheduled after school hours, so no students were affected.^[86]

  First mediated meeting

  The first of three mandatory meetings with a mediator from PERB was held on March 26, 2015. After the meeting, the two sides remained over $774 million apart. They were also still in disagreement over teacher evaluations that used student test scores. The district wanted to keep the evaluation system in place in order to receive $171 million from a federal government program that required districts to distinguish their best and worst teachers. The state of California declined to join the program, but LAUSD applied directly to the U.S. Department of Education to receive the funds. The program required the district have a teacher evaluation system that included at least three levels of performance in place by June 1, 2015. UTLA worried having such a system in place would result in teacher merit pay based on student test scores.^[87]

  On March 30, 2015, the district filed for an extension from the U.S. Department of Education for their teacher evaluation system.^[88]

  Second mediated meeting

  The second mediated meeting held on April 6, 2015, led to the two groups agreeing to meet multiple times before the third and last mediated session. Outside of the negotiations, the district voiced concern over increased healthcare costs due to a new recommended plan submitted by the Health Benefits Committee. The board approved the plan, which meant the 2015-2016 budget had to accommodate an additional $185.9 million for healthcare. Board member Monica Ratliff, the lone dissenter in the 6-1 vote to approve the plan, said programs or positions might have to be cut in order to support such a raise in costs.^[89][90]

  Tentative agreement

  LAUSD and UTLA came to a tentative three-year agreement on April 17, 2015. The agreement included a 10% pay raise over two years, changes to the teacher evaluation system, and more money put into decreasing class sizes and into counseling sources. Both UTLA and the LAUSD Board of Education had to ratify the agreement before it could come into effect.^[91]

  Ratifying the agreement

  The LAUSD Board of Education unanimously approved the contract with UTLA on April 21, 2015. After the vote, district officials said the contract could result in a $559 million deficit for the following two years.^[92] An increase in state funding helped cover that deficit.^[72]

  UTLA members voted to approve the contract in May 2015.^[93]

2015: LAUSD first district in country to represent immigrant children[edit]

• 2015: LAUSD first district in country to represent immigrant children (click to expand)
  In April 2015, lawyers for the Los Angeles Unified School District started providing legal aid at deportation hearings for a small number of unaccompanied minors. Under a new legal program called AYUDA, the pro-bono cases are pre-screened by outside immigration law experts and taken on a volunteer basis.^[94]

  Ten district lawyers handle these cases. They work between one and three hours per week and make up those hours by working late or on weekends.^[94]

  The program was approved 6-1 in a board meeting on February 10, 2015. Board member Tamar Galatzan was the only one to oppose the motion. As a public sector attorney, she said lawyers should do volunteer work outside of their work hours.^[94]

  “Anything we can do that doesn’t bankrupt us that helps kids, I’m for it,” said board member Richard A. Vladovic.^[94]

  Prior to voting to approve the program, board member George J. McKenna III voiced some concerns. He said the program was a "worthy enterprise" but was concerned that the district was setting an unsupportable precedent and stepping over its responsibilities.^[94]

2015: District named in student exercise lawsuit[edit]

• 2015: District named in student exercise lawsuit (click to expand)

  

  The Los Angeles Unified School District, along with 36 other school districts, was named in a 2013 lawsuit alleging the district's students were not getting enough exercise. As of 2014, the state required that schools give students in kindergarten through sixth grade 200 minutes of exercise every 10 days of class, in addition to lunch and recess.^[95] The lawsuit was filed by Marc Babin and the nonprofit organization Cal200, which he led at the time of the lawsuit.^[96]

  Babin, a parent and resident of Alameda, settled with the 37 school districts named in the lawsuit. The settlement required California elementary schools to prove they are providing children with at least the state-mandated minimum number of minutes of physical education. To do this, school districts will publicly document physical education minutes. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Mary Wiss approved the settlement in March 2015.^[96][97]

  Prior to the settlement's final approval, Los Angeles Unified and the San Francisco and San Diego school districts publicly supported Assembly Bill 1391, a bill introduced in February 2015 seeking to set up a complaint process for physical education allegations. The complaint process would go through the school districts involved in the allegations and the California Department of Education, rather than through the court system.^[98]

  The bill was signed by the governor on October 9, 2015.

2015: District fights teacher evaluation system repeal[edit]

• 2015: District fights teacher evaluation system repeal (click to expand)
  The Los Angeles Unified School District was ordered to partially repeal its teacher evaluation system by California’s Public Employment Review Board less than two years after it was implemented, but lawyers for the district argued that the system should remain in place due to a “constitutional crisis." The element of the evaluation system at issue tied teacher pay to student performance, which United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) called unfair since student performance can be widely influenced by factors outside of the classroom.^[99][100]

  Implemented in March 2013 and supported by former superintendent John Deasy, LAUSD's teacher evaluation system included observations that UTLA had not consented to. The union filed a complaint with the Public Employment Review Board in 2013, claiming the district had unilaterally imposed the evaluation system without allowing teachers the chance to negotiate it. On December 24, 2014, the review board found that the observation portion of the evaluation system violated state law. The review board ruled that the district restore the "status quo" and pay back the teachers who had lost payment due to the evaluation system with an addition of 7% interest each year.^[99]

  The district had until February 22, 2015, to appeal the decision, which the district decided to do on February 17, 2015. Lawyers for the district filed an appeal with the California Public Employment Relations Board asserting that the teacher evaluation system was needed to ensure students were not deprived of their constitutional right to an education. They said the district should be able to retain its right to create a performance evaluation system for its employees.^[99][100]

  President of UTLA Alex Caputo-Pearl called on the district to work with teachers to establish a new evaluation system instead of spending resources on the appeal case.^[100]

  After contract negotiations between UTLA and the district finally ended in agreement, both parties came together to overhaul the evaluation system. For the 2015-2016 school year, they agreed to test a system with three evaluation ratings: “exceeds standards,” “meets standards” and “below standards.” The two parties also planned to re-write the Teacher Growth and Development Cycle, which were the basic protocols for the teacher evaluations.^[101]

2014: District fires lawyer one year after winning sex abuse case[edit]

• 2014: District fires lawyer one year after winning sex abuse case (click to expand)
  In November 2013, attorney W. Keith Wyatt won a civil lawsuit for the Los Angeles Unified School District by arguing that the district had no knowledge of a relationship between a 14-year-old middle school student and her 28-year-old math teacher. He also argued that the student was old enough to consent to sex with her teacher and bore some responsibility for what happened. One year later, the student appealed the decision, and the district dropped Wyatt after he made remarks alleging it was more dangerous to cross the street than to have sex with a teacher.^[102][103]

  With Wyatt's remarks, more details about the case came to light. The district had been on trial for whether or not it was at fault for allowing the relationship between student and teacher to continue for months. For their defensive strategy, the district's lawyers had presented the student's sexual history to the court as evidence, and Wyatt had claimed in his closing arguments that she had pursued the case for financial reasons alone. Because it was a civil trial, rather than a criminal trial, such claims were allowed, and the district was cleared from any responsibility.^[102][103]

  In July 2011, Elkis Hermida, the teacher involved with the student, was sentenced to three years in state prison for lewd acts against a child. In that trial, the age of consent was firmly established at 18, meaning the student did not have the ability to consent. In civil cases, however, that line is less firm due to two appellate court rulings that maintained it was possible to argue a minor can consent to have sex with an adult.^[103]

  Neither the superintendent nor the school board of Los Angeles Unified School District commented on the district's decision to drop Wyatt. Dave Holmquist, the district's general counsel, called Wyatt's comments "inappropriate" and said they undermined "the spirit of the environment we strive to offer our students every day." Though Wyatt did issue a formal apology for his remarks, he did not comment on the district's action to remove him.^[102][103]

  On July 16, 2015, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill into law that stops the use of child consent as a defense in civil court cases. State Sen. Ricardo Lara (D) said the law closes a loophole. "Now, sexual predators will no longer be off the hook for child abuse and negligence because of a nuance in law," said Lara.^[104]

2014: Superintendent resigns[edit]

• 2014: Superintendent resigns (click to expand)
  Dr. John Deasy resigned from his position as superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District on October 15, 2014, after serving the district for three and a half years. The resignation was tendered in a joint statement from Deasy and the Los Angeles Unified Board of Education. Former superintendent Ramon C. Cortines returned to lead the district on an interim basis until a replacement for Deasy could be found. Deasy stayed with the district on special assignment until December 31, 2014.

  Under Deasy's leadership, student test scores and graduation rates improved while suspension rates and dropout rates declined. Despite these improvements to the district, Deasy had an uneasy relationship with United Teachers Los Angeles, the district's teachers union. The union's president Alex Caputo-Pearl said Deasy pushed for too many programs, such as a $1 billion iPad program, the restructuring of struggling schools, and the introduction of a student tracking software that ended up being defective, without consideration for educators.^[105]

  In his letter of resignation, Deasy highlighted the district's improvements under his leadership, including graduation rates, tests scores, attendance rates, suspensions, safety, and the number of students taking advanced placement classes. Though he said he was very proud the district stayed focused on its goal to "lift youth out of poverty," he also said serving as superintendent had been "exhausting work" and that he was happy to hand it over to the next leader.^[106]

2014: Technology programs investigated[edit]

• 2014: Technology programs investigated (click to expand)
  Former Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent John Deasy was criticized in the summer of 2014 over a program to give out 700,000 iPads to students and teachers in the district. The $1.3 billion program was suspended before all the iPads could be distributed, and circumstances surrounding the contract negotiations led to a federal grand jury investigation.^{[107][108][109]}

  iPad program

  Critics had argued that the iPad program was too expensive and rushed before it was implemented, but more serious complaints started when it was revealed that Deasy had met and communicated with Apple and Pearson before open bidding for the program began in 2013. Questions arose over whether or not the program had been rigged and if Deasy had helped the two companies win the bidding process, which could have stifled competition and cost both the district and taxpayers millions of dollars. Though Deasy halted the program to address the concerns and restart the bidding process, many in the district, including United Teachers Los Angeles, called for an investigation into the matter.^[107][110]

  MiSiS problems

  Before the iPad program could be resolved, another technological program caused more problems for the district. The automated scheduling and attendance recording system MiSiS caused delayed registration at the start of the 2014-2015 school year.^[110] The problems resulted in a judge ordering state officials to review the program. The Los Angeles Unified Board of Education approved a $1.1 million plan to follow through on that order and hired a third-party observer to review the system.^[111][112]

  Deasy resigns

  Though an investigation into the district's iPad program was started, Deasy resigned in October 2014, before things were resolved. In his joint letter of resignation with the Los Angeles Unified Board of Education, the board said they did not believe Deasy had engaged in any ethical violations or unlawful acts. In the weeks leading up to his resignation, the board's lawyers negotiated a separation agreement with Deasy's lawyers.^[112]

  Federal grand jury investigation

  

  The investigation into the iPad program led to a federal grand jury subpoena asking for documents related to the bidding process for the program as well as any documents related to the winning bidders, including former contracts and other projects. The FBI's office of public corruption seized the documents on December 1, 2014. On December 2, 2014, interim superintendent Ramon C. Cortines followed through on Deasy's original suspension of the iPad program, officially canceling it. He said he had to "make sure things are done properly so they are not questioned.” He planned to start a new bidding process in 2015.^[109][113] The FBI announced in February 2017 that it would not file charges related to the investigation.^[114]

  Fixing MiSiS

  In December 2014, the United States Department of Education issued a report that gave the district recommendations on how to fix its technology program problems and move forward with future projects. The report suggested that future technology programs be tested before being implemented district-wide. It also suggested consolidating technology support and helplines and implementing a classroom technology strategy for the whole district. The report came in response to a request from Cortines. He asked for a review and for help fixing the MiSiS system. With fixing costs, the district could end up spending as much as four times more than the $25 million it originally budgeted for the system.^[115]

  The MiSiS system cost the district in others ways as well. Because of its faulty start, the district miscounted attendance figures at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year. Those attendance figures had to be reported to the state to determine a district's funding levels. An estimated $47 million was lost due to incorrect figures, according to district officials.^[116]

  The state has the ability to waive the attendance records due to disasters such as earthquakes or blizzards, and United Teachers Los Angeles President Alex Caputo-Pearl suggested that MiSiS had been just as bad for the district as a natural disaster. Caputo-Pearl requested LAUSD Superintendent Cortines accompany him to a meeting with State Superintendent Tom Torlakson to ask for a waiver.^[116]

  Demanding refund from Apple and Pearson

  Nearly two years after entering into a contract with Apple and Pearson to provide iPads with English and math curriculum apps to all LAUSD students, the district began to pursue a refund. According to an internal report, only two of the 69 schools with access to the iPads and curriculum provided by Pearson still used them. The rest gave up, citing technology glitches, a lack of adaptability for non-English speaking students and no availability to online assessments to help guide instruction.^[117]

  The board of education authorized the district's lawyers to explore the possibility of litigation against Apple and Pearson in April 2015. LAUSD general counsel David Holmquist sent a letter to Apple expressing the district's dissatisfaction with the Pearson curriculum and telling them the district would not compensate the company for any more products that contain the curriculum. The letter also detailed the district's desire to meet with both companies in order to arrange “the dissociation from Pearson and recoup the costs of Pearson licenses that we paid for but have been unable to use.”^[117]

  “I believe that it is time for Pearson to either deliver on its promises immediately or provide us with a refund so that we can purchase curriculum that actually works for our students,” said board member Monica Ratliff.^[117]

Contact information[edit]

Los Angeles Unified School District
333 S. Beaudry Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-241-1000

About school boards[edit]

Education legislation in California[edit]

Bills are monitored by BillTrack50 and sorted by action history.

See also[edit]

California	School Board Elections	News and Analysis
List of school districts in California School board elections in California Public education in California	California school board elections, 2024	United States school shootings, 1990-present

External links[edit]

• Search Google News for this topic
• Los Angeles Unified School District
• United Teachers Los Angeles
• California Department of Education
• California School Boards Association

Footnotes[edit]

	v • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy