LAUSD District 7’s Open Seat

What we really need in this country is a revolution in public education.

- Bernie Sanders

Image for post
Image for post

The members of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board are not known for having a long tenure. Of the seven members on the board, five were seated since 2014. Of these five, George McKenna (Board District 1) is the longest-serving, having been elected after his predecessor passed away while in office. Scott Schmerelson (Board District 3) took office the following year after defeating the incumbent at the ballot box. In the next election cycle, Nick Melvoin (District 4) also defeated his predecessor and Kelly Gonez (District 6) won an election in which the incumbent did not run as she sought a spot on the Los Angeles City Council. The board’s freshman member, Jackie Goldberg (District 5), returned to her old board seat last year after former charter school administrator Ref Rodriguez was convicted of felony charges related to his campaign.

Image for post
Image for post

While Monica Garcia (District 2) is the longest-serving board member, having taken office in 2006, Richard Vladovic (District 7) will be the first member of the board to be forced from office due to term limits. This is due to the fact that the maximum of three terms only applies to those elected on or after March 1, 2007. As a result, for the first time in 13 years, voters in South Los Angeles will face a ballot without Dr. V’s name on it. Of the four 2020 LAUSD School Board elections in 2020, it will also be the only one without an incumbent in the running.

Five candidates collected enough signatures to have their names placed on the March 3, 2020, primary ballot. As a group, they bring a diverse set of skills to the race. They include the politician who preceded Dr. Vladovic, a current teacher, a parent, a Director of Charter Schools and a lawyer working in the field of education.

While much of the coverage of elections is focused on how much the candidates raise or who has endorsed them, this data provides no useful information for voters attempting to make an educated choice. With this in mind, I sent a set of eight questions to the email address that each of the candidates provided to the Los Angeles City Clerk. While I specified a deadline of December 23, 2019, in the email, I extended the due date for any candidate who requested it. All but Mike Lansing responded.

The answers are presented in the order that the candidates appear on the City Clerk’s website:

Question 1: Currently, not one of the LAUSD Board Members has a child who is enrolled in a district school. Do you commit to hiring staff members who have children enrolled in a district school? If not, how will you ensure that parent voices are heard?

Image for post
Image for post

Silke Bradford: “Our campaign is a grassroots effort and one of the first supporters to come on board as an active volunteer is a mother of 5 kids and LAUSD parent engagement coordinator. We speak or meet regularly (at least once per week, but oftentimes more) as she is an integral member of our campaign committee due to her insights as a parent, as well as an LAUSD employee. Her children currently attend, or have attended, Watts schools K-12. Though three of her children are in college or have graduated from college, she intimately understands the challenges faced by families in underserved schools; particularly in the northern areas of D7. With all of that said, I will obviously hire LAUSD families to the D7 staff as they are who we serve.

My first-hand experience teaching and leading in all types of school settings makes me uniquely qualified to represent such a diverse set of experiences with a unifying vision around the shared interest of providing a high-quality education to all kids in LA. As a District Senior Director evaluating parent voice in a school, I often ask family focus groups to name a change to policy or practice that stemmed from parent/family concerns or desires. It is disheartening to report that many school and political leaders only afford superficial involvement of families. I see students and families as clients whose needs, desires, and concerns must be central to decision making.

District 7 families, in particular, have mixed feedback as it pertains to being seen/heard by their board trustee. Families in San Pedro are satisfied with their representation and input, while the further north you move (i.e. Watts/Florence South LA) families feel completely disconnected from the board trustee. I would propose a monthly D7 family advisory board structure, as well as rotating board meeting locations throughout all seven of the board districts. Families can not make it to a meeting with ease, so this barrier to engagement should certainly be addressed by LAUSD. Though remote participation steps have been taken, I see the rotation of meeting locations (at least 6 times per year) as critical to fostering more authentic engagement on the whole.

Finally, I actually think there is also a benefit to my not being a parent of a child that attends or works at a school in D7. Board members with children attending or working at D7 schools have been perceived to have received special treatment in terms of resources provided to their child’s school, or employment opportunities available to their child. I know that I would be above reproach in this regard and would treat all schools fairly since I am not related to anyone in D7 or LAUSD as a whole.”

Patricia Castellanos: “One of the main reasons that I am running for the LAUSD School Board is to ensure that parents are represented in the top decision-making that impacts our children’s lives. I am a parent of a first-grader that currently attends an LAUSD school and understands many of the hopes and concerns shared by parents across the District. If elected to the Board, I would be the only member with a child currently attending an LAUSD school. Beyond that, I am committed to hiring a staff that reflects the District’s racial and socioeconomic diversity, which also includes staff that understands the crucial perspectives of parents.”

Tanya Ortiz Franklin: “I commit to seriously considering all aspects of diversity of experience and perspective in hiring for our team, including district parenthood, which is incredibly important. My campaign consultant is an LAUSD parent and several of my closest advisors and campaign volunteers are district parents. As a board member, I will regularly convene a BD 7 advisory group of parents and educators, as I have done in my time at the Partnership for LA Schools, to discuss and offer feedback on important issues and ideas so that the voices of those closest to kids and classrooms meaningfully contribute to our district’s decision-making. I will also ask our Superintendent and Board to invest the required energy and care into our PAC, CAC and DELAC committees as well as respect parents’ time coming to board meetings for public comment. I look forward to continuously seeking guidance from our parents, educators and school staff to monitor progress and impact of district policies and practices.”

Lydia Gutierrez: “I am a strong advocate for parent voices to be heard and recognized. By law, when hiring, the employer is not allowed to ask about their personal background if they have children or not. Once I am elected, I would set up a system where parents have easy access to me. I would have every school post my contact information on their school website in the 7th district. I would have scheduled coffee meetings in the evening throughout my district so parents could meet me, share their concerns, and I could share what issues the district is dealing with.”

Mike Lansing: Lansing did not provide a response to the questionnaire. He is widely considered to be the candidate supported by the charter school industry. If he were to win the race, charter schools would regain the majority that they lost with the felony conviction of Ref Rodriguez.

Question 2: LAUSD Board meetings are currently scheduled during the same time that schools are in session which means that teachers and students, as well as most working parents, cannot engage with their representatives during these meetings. Do you support increasing community engagement either through the proposed Board Meeting Accessibility to the Public resolution or through other measures?

Silke Bradford: “Please see my related/board meeting response in the answer above.”

Image for post
Image for post

Patricia Castellanos: “Yes, I support increasing community and parent engagement. We need more parent and community involvement with LAUSD. It is an essential ingredient in creating an enriching learning environment for our students. That is why I helped to launch a Community Schools initiative that promotes active parent and community engagement, in which LAUSD has invested $12 million to strengthen 30 public schools. Proposals to make our board meetings more accessible to parents are also important. LAUSD should not send mixed messages to

parents by claiming an interest in their perspectives, but making it nearly impossible to participate, let alone attend school board meetings.”

Tanya Ortiz Franklin: “I agree that board meeting schedules should be reconsidered and modified to meet the priorities of the district, including meaningful and accessible community engagement. Tuesday board meetings are not only held when students are in school and many parents are working, but are specifically held when the vast majority of LAUSD schools are conducting professional development with educators and school staff, which is the time that implementation of policies and practices takes place. The current board meeting time prevents the board, Superintendent and their staff to observe and learn with school staff during the most common adult learning time across our district. The proposed resolution offers important considerations about the length and scheduled time of board meetings, encouraging public comment from multiple perspectives on an issue, and respecting the public’s time and energy put into attending these meetings. I would like to better understand what has prevented these types of changes from already being made and move towards more accessible strategies like those mentioned in the proposed resolution.”

Lydia Gutierrez: “It is unacceptable that School Board meetings are being held during the working and classroom day. I am unaware of any reason why the Board continues to do this, especially after receiving a full-time salary pay of over $100k as a Board member. If they claim for security or safety reasons, every school that I know throughout the state has their meetings in the evening; they all have security present. Since the district is very large, I would recommend that we have roving meetings in our regional areas. We set up satellite locations for parents to participate in public comment time. Since there are two meetings per month, one can be at the central main building it meets presently and the other at the local district location. There are 6 local district location offices throughout the LAUSD district ( I am in full agreement to your resolution and push for changing the School Board scheduling and different locations by a vote of the Board. I expressed this same concern to the LA Times and told them it would be my first order of business to address this concern.”

Mike Lansing: Lansing did not provide a response to the questionnaire.

Question 3: Under current policy, parents of children with special education needs must sign confidentiality agreements when negotiating settlements with the district. This prohibits parents from sharing information with other parents about services that are available to help students meet their full potential. Do you commit to eliminating this policy?

Silke Bradford: “During my undergraduate studies at Sacramento State I worked at the Special Education Hearing Office (SEHO) which holds mediation and dispute resolution hearings for all special education cases in California. My older brother also has down syndrome, so beyond my professional expertise, I have a deeply personal connection to SPED.

FERPA requires that employees of the district not share personal student information, but there should not be something that prohibits families from sharing information about their own child. These agreements seem to suggest a cover-up [of] disparate or unequal treatment and understandably breed distrust due to the forced lack of transparency. I am committed to eliminating this practice and ensuring that all students, whether their parents have the social capital to advocate for their child or not, are receiving the services they need to access FAPE in the least restrictive environment.”

Patricia Castellanos: “As a Board Member, I would be committed to balancing the privacy interests of parents and children along with the public’s broader interest in ensuring that our schools effectively serve all students with special education needs. LAUSD should evaluate the impact and pattern of settlements for opportunities to improve our practices to meet the needs of our parents and children.”

Image for post
Image for post

Tanya Ortiz Franklin: “As a former classroom teacher and special education lawyer who has attended dozens of IEP meetings, I commit to ensuring the IEP process is collaborative and student-centered and that IEP teams are empowered to make the best decisions for student placement, services, and goals. It is important that the confidentiality clauses required by federal and state laws serve their purpose of protecting student information and building trust rather than cause frustration or negative experiences.”

Lydia Gutierrez: “If there is a violation of the law, as a Board member, I would demand that proof be given that the District corrected the problem to whatever the incident that occurred. I would move forward to what would be beneficial to the needs of students in the future be shared where and when appropriate.”

Mike Lansing: Lansing did not provide a response to the questionnaire.

Question 4: In order to ensure that IEPs provide an educational program that will help students reach their full potential, the IEP process must be fully collaborative. Therefore, teachers, administrators and other district employees must be willing to speak freely without fear of retribution for providing their opinions. Do you commit to supporting policies that prohibit the District from punishing employees who inform parents of all of the options available to their students?

Silke Bradford: “Working in education the last 20 years I have seen how subtle and blatant intimidation of employees can transpire in these settings. I am well known as an employee that “rocks the boat” in giving my well-researched opinions and urgent advocacy in service of kids and upholding the law. I have my father to thank for instilling this fighting spirit in me, as he told me that if I ever suffered retaliation for standing up for what is right, that he would make sure my living expenses were covered.

As a board member, I would direct HR staff to conduct exit interviews as I believe a lot of retribution goes unreported, but upon exiting an organization, if invited to give feedback, I think many would call out these retribution practices/perpetrators I personally would have an open-door policy for all constituents, including employees, and I am skilled at addressing grievances with district staff while maintaining employee confidentiality. I have gained this sort of communication and problem-solving expertise as both a school site and district leader. These skills will be critical and relevant to my work as the D7 board member.”

Patricia Castellanos: “Yes, the District needs to work more collaboratively with families with children with special education needs to ensure that students are getting proper services, timely assessments, and IEPs when appropriate. Trust and access to information are essential to promoting an environment where District staff and families can work together in the best interest of our children.”

Tanya Ortiz Franklin: “Yes, absolutely.”

Image for post
Image for post

Lydia Gutierrez: “I am presently a public-school teacher and I am aware of my limits. It is a very important process that can dramatically help a student to become successful in the classroom if the student is given the support that they need. LAUSD is not the only district that limits a teacher. I support finding ways to better support parents when seeking educational alternatives.”

Mike Lansing: Lansing did not provide a response to the questionnaire.

Question 5: While inclusion and mainstreaming have benefitted many children with special education needs, these programs are not suitable for all children. For many children, Special Education Centers provide the best option for helping them reach their full potential. Do you commit to keeping these schools fully funded and the option of attending made available to parents during the IEP process?

Silke Bradford: “Having worked as a teacher in alternative education schools (continuation and community day) I even understand that traditional school settings are also not suitable for all students enrolled in general education, This also extends to the fact that not all students enrolled in SPED should be in traditional school settings either. Though I do want to be sure that we are not segregating SWDs unnecessarily, I do know from my personal and professional experiences that special centers are necessary for some children. Decisions for such a placement definitely needs to be collaborative and evidence-based versus fear or fiscally driven.

For those students that mainstreaming is the best education option, it is critical that LAUSD adequately support these efforts with staffing and resources. Professional development for general education teachers is one thing, but to expect them to single-handedly provide the supporting conditions for successful inclusion is outrageous and a detriment to all students and staff. I would hold district leadership accountable for providing reasonable and necessary staffing (i.e. paraprofessionals and co-teacher) in order for inclusion to work effectively.”

Patricia Castellanos: “Parents and students cannot benefit from a one-size-fits-all approach. It is important to identify which students need access to special education programs and ensure that they get it. The District must also better engage parents of children with IEPs or section 504 protections so that they understand more about what support is available and are empowered to advocate for their children.”

Tanya Ortiz Franklin: “IEP placement decisions are absolutely a collaborative team decision and I appreciate that LAUSD is moving away from segregationist practices and towards more inclusive practices, following the recommendations of most researchers, educators, parents, and advocates, as most large districts around the country have done. It will take time and clear communication — including listening and responding to concerns from all stakeholders — to do this shift well, and I would not be in favor of quickly closing options that families, students, and educators have found to be successful. That said, I am also very interested in discussing all options to stabilize the budget, including creative school site configurations that first meet the academic and social-emotional needs of students and second help reduce costs for the long-term fiscal health of the district.”

Lydia Gutierrez: “Yes, I am a strong supporter of meeting the needs of Special Needs students and finding the best environment for their educational success. This is why I would fully support an intrinsic audit to know how finances are being spent. I would work towards assuring that funding for Special Education Centers is solidly in the budget.”

Mike Lansing: Lansing did not provide a response to the questionnaire.

Question 6: To ensure that children enrolled in Special Education Centers have exposure to their typical peers, do you commit to ensuring that magnet programs are included on these campuses. These magnets would serve children who are interested in pursuing careers in special education.

Silke Bradford: “My name, Silke Bradford, represents the two parts of who I am. I’m the daughter of a German civilian who worked as a liaison between the US military and the German government, which is how she met my African American father serving as an Army Master Sergeant on a military base in Germany. They later married and had my older brother who was born with Down Syndrome and this fact changed the trajectory of my family’s life. The hospital staff suggested that my parents place my brother in an institution. They knew at that moment that Germany could not be their forever home. This is why my parents decided to immigrate to America, specifically to California, that was known for having a progressive education system that embraced kids with disabilities like my brother Oliver.

This fact inspired me to go into education and I take seriously eradicating the exclusionary practices of pushing those with disabilities to the back of society. In education systems like LAUSD, this shows up in schools where the SPED classrooms are often at the back of campuses and these students are not actively included in school activities and performances. This becomes even more prevalent in secondary schools. This is why as the founding Principal at the Henry Clay MS transformation under Green Dot I placed our SWDs (mod/severe) at a classroom at the front of the campus and explicitly recruited these students to participate in all activities. I had general education students begging to visit this class and the entire school community truly embraced our differently-abled kids. As a D7 board member I would support a magnet model as described, but also create best practices around the authentic social inclusion of SWDs on all school campuses, as all kids benefit from friendships with those that are different than them.”

Patricia Castellanos: “Magnet schools have provided LAUSD students with learning and career development opportunities. I would be committed to themes related to education, including careers in special education.”

Tanya Ortiz Franklin: “I am interested in considering all creative school-site configurations and models that meet the needs, including career exploration, of all students and build long-term fiscal sustainability of the district.”

Lydia Gutierrez: “Special Need students should be given the same opportunity as their peers. It is hypocritical to be talking and promoting Equality and Equitability if it is not being offered to all students. I want to see all students shall have access to quality education. This is what I believe and will work toward.”

Mike Lansing: Lansing did not provide a response to the questionnaire.

Image for post
Image for post

Question 7: The State of Denial report released by UTLA and the CTA revealed that privately-run charter schools under-enroll students with disabilities to bolster their reported outcomes and achieve cost savings. How will you address this issue?

Silke Bradford: “This is an issue that I formally identified and testified to the Senate Education Committee regarding in 2016. Specifically, charter schools grossly under-enroll students with moderate to severe disabilities like my brother with down syndrome. I easily identified this issue by polling the charter schools I oversaw for Oakland USD as to whether they pay for bussing of students per an IEP. Zero schools paid zero dollars, while the district spent millions on this service. LAUSD is no different in this regard and it is something that was caused by a change in the law that permitted a charter to leave the district SELPA and join a county SELPA. This shift has caused a number of issues that I have been advocating at the state and local level to be addressed, and are enumerated below:

All charters used to be paying members of the district SELPA and

thus paid their fair share to educate all SWDs even if they did not serve them directly — Just as some SWDs can not attend their neighborhood district school because the program they need is not offered there, charter schools in the SELPA also had to send some of their SWDs to other district SELPA schools due to lack of program offerings — The above was an equitable model as all district and charter schools in the SELPA paid their fair share to educate all students directly or indirectly — Charters jumped at the chance to exit the district SELPA and run their own sped program (instead of having to use lausd employees), but this also meant that if a student showed up with any/all disabilities, the charter was on their own and legally required to create the program for that student — The problem became that district staff, families and charters still think kids with mod/severe disabilities need to be redirected to district schools like in the past, but now with charters being a member of a county SELPA, this created a new obligation for them to create a program for all SWDs since the charter was no longer a paying member of the district SELPA.

In response to the above, LAUSD in partnership with CCSA created a third-way option for charters to be a part of the LAUSD SELPA while paying a lower fee and retaining employment of their own SPED staff in some cases. As a D7 board member, I would request staff to conduct a current fiscal analysis of how this arrangement may or may not be effective in ensuring that charters pay their fair share and/or serve their fair share of SWDs (mod/severe in particular).”

Patricia Castellanos: “Federal law requires that students with disabilities are guaranteed a free and appropriate public education. Recent reports show that charter schools serve a smaller percentage of students with special education needs than traditional neighborhood schools within LAUSD and similar districts. With resources diverted to schools claiming to serve students with special education needs, this disproportionate treatment has a financial impact on all of our schools and students.

A root cause of this problem is the systemic underfunding of special education. For too long, the federal government has failed in its obligation to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Over the past 13 years, Congress has failed to appropriate $347 billion towards the education of low-income, primarily Black and Brown, students. Since 2005, Congress has short-changed $233 billion in funding that should have gone to states to provide services to students with disabilities. LAUSD must galvanize other school boards, state legislators, and special education advocates to redirect federal funding that is overdue and owed to California and our students.

Our state and federal administrations, along with charter authorizers, must fulfill their legal obligations to uphold the rights of all students with special education needs. I support the continued local and state trend of increasing the transparency and accountability of charter schools to ensure their practices serve all students.”

Tanya Ortiz Franklin: “One immediate step for individual charter schools is to use the renewal process to understand what efforts have been made and could be made to increase equitable enrollment across various subgroups. Having on-going opportunities for community engagement across the district will help to understand both specific experiences and trend data to find solutions together through better collaboration between the office of special education and the charter division with our board office. Additionally, as a systemic approach, I’m looking forward to the Superintendent’s report in 2020 of the findings and recommendations to improve equitable enrollment as a result of the November 2019 board resolution, Access and Opportunity for All: Analyzing Enrollment Patterns to Support School Integration Efforts.”

Lydia Gutierrez: “I would review the report and request the LAUSD district lawyer to present what laws have been broken for not fulfilling students with disabilities requirements that are within our district. If there are any loopholes that are being used that allow any organization to deny full access to their school for Special Needs students to receive a quality education, I believe they should be challenged. I would also work with state legislators to correct these loopholes by supporting new legislation.”

Mike Lansing: Lansing did not provide a response to the questionnaire.

Image for post
Image for post

Question 8: Under language required in every charter school application, the District is allowed to appoint one member to every charter’s governing board. Do you support the proposed “Community Representation on Charter School Boards” resolution which outlines a process for ensuring that the district is appropriately represented?

Silke Bradford: “I have faced this challenge for the last 7 years as a charter school authorizer representing Oakland and Compton USD’s interests. I also have witnessed litigation in this regard in Alameda USD. In theory, it appears straightforward to appoint a board member to every charter board, but in practice, it is quite a precarious and liability filled endeavor for a variety of reasons. I will list some of those challenges/cautions below:

  • Whoever the district appoints can not be an employee of the district as it is a conflict of interest for the district to both operate and evaluate a charter for closure (ie a charter can blame a district appointed board member for poor hiring or fiscal decisions thus tying the district’s hands to then penalize/close the charter for the actions of a district appointed charter board member).
  • The person appointed to the charter board is expected by law to be a full board member meaning they must fulfill all of the duties and expectations of a charter board member like fundraising for the charter etc. Community members most attracted to being a district appointed charter board member often want nothing to do with supporting a charter in this way but would need to as a full board member.
  • With 228 charter schools, it would be impossible to find that many qualifying community members that are trained to both be a full board member but also report back to LAUSD staff in a systematic fashion.

In light of the real concerns above, I would recommend that LAUSD make appointments to charter boards if the charter school has received any sort of Notice of Concern from the LAUSD Office of Charter Schools, but especially if it involved fiscal or governance concerns. This would narrow the number of appointees to a manageable number and not open the district to the liability of appointing untrained or obstructionist board members opening the district to legal challenges and costly settlements.

Though I know this answer may not be as satisfying as saying “yes- full speed ahead and appoint one district rep to all charter school boards,” it is an answer that is thoughtfully informed by 7 years of authorizing expertise and legal analysis. A board member must be a fiscal steward and protect the district from overreach, while also rooting out any charter corruption and improprieties. Striking this balance and also having the education experience and charter expertise will be critical to leading effectively on the LAUSD board.

The same scrutiny that we rightfully hold charters to, I would also hold the finance and operations of the district to as the public rightfully questions LAUSD’s fiscal management practices as well.”

Patricia Castellanos: “As mentioned above, I support greater transparency and accountability of charter schools to ensure their practices serve all students. This includes ensuring that charter board meetings are accessible for the parents and students they are supposed to represent. I would also support exploring practices that would increase parent and community representation on charter school boards.”

Tanya Ortiz Franklin: “While I support accountability for all schools to serve children and families well, I don’t know that appointing a district-selected member to every charter’s governing board will help achieve greater accountability and better outcomes for students. Generally, I believe the district should empower all schools with more flexibility and resources for more local control across our large and diverse district, inclusive of all school models. As it relates to charter school accountability, the passage of AB 1505 will give more transparency and district discretion over charter school renewals that may be struggling to support all students’ academic and social-emotional success, which is our number one goal.”

Lydia Gutierrez: “I am supportive of the resolution, ‘Community Representation on Charter School Boards.’ I believe every school board, district or charter, needs to be accountable for academic excellence for all students (inclusive of Special Needs), fiscal accountability and ensuring a career path and or college-bound future.

Mike Lansing: Lansing did not provide a response to the questionnaire.

If there are any other issues that you would like to address, please feel free to include them in your response.

Silke Bradford: “LAUSD students’ success and well-being, employee retention and morale, and the District’s fiscal health are all on the line in this election. As a lifelong educator I, Silke Bradford, am the right person to fight for these interests today, tomorrow, and into the future!

Beyond our campaign priorities for LAUSD, my personal passion projects in Sacramento seeking needed legislative reform will only be elevated through my role as an LAUSD board member. I was successful in bringing to the Senate Education Committee (2018) the fact that a quarter of charter schools in CA were not serving free/reduced meals to qualifying kids due to education code exempting charters from having to provide meals. I then partnered with CA Food Policy Advocates and Assembly Member Bonta to overturn this unjust exemption through AB1871. Through our testimony and personal lobbying of elected officials, we were victorious and now all charter schools must participate in a federal meal program and feed their students. This is just one example of how if I see something that is unjust, I go to the source to stand up and make it right.

Having spent the last 20 years in the field of education at every level in school districts (teacher, assistant principal, principal, and senior director) and the county office of education, I am the best and most experienced candidate for LAUSD D7. I value the voices and experiences of all stakeholders: students, families, educators, staff and community members. I look forward to building on the great things already happening in LAUSD, while also being a voice of reason and urgency to address what needs to be improved.

Tanya Ortiz Franklin: “I would be happy to engage further on this and any other topic to ensure that I fully understand the concerns, opportunities, and impact before making a decision as a board member. Thank you for the questions and I look forward to continued dialogue in service of our students’ achievement.”


Carl Petersen is a parent, an advocate for students with special education needs, an elected member of the Northridge East Neighborhood Council, an appointed alternate to the LAUSD’s CAC, and was a Green Party candidate in LAUSD’s District 2 School Board race. During the campaign, he was endorsed by the Network for Public Education (NPE) Action and Dr. Diane Ravitch called him a “strong supporter of public schools.” His past blogs can be found at Opinions are his own.

Written by

Parent, special education advocate and former LAUSD School Board candidate. Still fighting for the children.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store