October 30, 2012 | 4:02 pm

UTLA, MONEY AND OUR KIDS

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Follow JewishJournal.com on

The last few days have seen Americans preoccupied, understandably so, with Hurricane Sandy and next week’s election. The attention that might normally have been paid to two items in the Los Angeles Times just isn’t there, but it ought to be.

Last week, the Times disclosed that John Deasy, the superintendent of Los Angeles schools, had urged United Teachers of Los Angeles (the District’s union) to “lay aside its concerns and back a federal grant application that could bring $40 million to the cash-strapped district.” Noting that the District was facing difficult financial times, the superintendent observed that, “It’s a critical opportunity in these painful fiscal times.”

Indeed, if UTLA agreed to sign on to the grant application to the US Department of Education, the District stood to receive $40 million which would potentially have to be matched by $3.3 million from the District.  The grant  would have helped 35 low-performing schools and their 25,000 students.

In last week’s article the Times reported that UTLA was reluctant to agree to the grant application because it was concerned that the grant would not cover all the costs of implementing the District’s proposal. “We do not think it’s budgetarily sustainable…we don’t want to mortgage our future,” said UTLA president Warren Fletcher. He noted that the $3.3 million that would be the District’s share of the new program was equivalent “to the cost of 39 teachers.”

The objections he raised last week were countered by the District’s pledge that no District money would be used to fund the program, but rather the additional money would come from “fundraising efforts.”

Deasy’s pleas and his promise to not negatively impact the District’s budget fell on deaf ears. Yesterday the Times reported that UTLA had “declined” to sign on to the District’s grant application (which was due today but whose deadline has been extended because of Hurricane Sandy). The effort to secure an additional $40 million for the children of Los Angeles is dead.

Despite the District’s commitment to fundraise for the grant’s $3.3 shortfall, UTLA’s Fletcher proffered the absurd argument that “there was greater risk than likely reward.” Hopefully, Fletcher didn’t teach economics when he was in the classroom,; paying $3.3 million in order to receive $40 million has greater reward than risk---no two ways about it.

The transparent silliness of UTLA’s veto betrays their real motivation in terminating the grant for LA’s kids---their antipathy to any suggestion that student test scores can legitimately be even a part of teacher evaluations. The Race to the Top grant would have required that student test scores “or other measures of academic achievement” be a “significant factor” in teacher evaluations by 2014. Clearly not the only factor or the factor, just a "significant" factor,

So there we have it---it’s not about the kids or their education (time was when UTLA’s press releases included the pro forma language, “will do the most good for our students”) that pretense is gone. This is all about not ceding ground on the process by which teachers are evaluated—not even a hint of accountability will be tolerated. If it takes kissing off $43 million in a financially desperate District to make the point, UTLA seems perfectly comfortable in doing so.

UTLA seems unconcerned about stonewalling the District even if it means instilling doubt into voters’ minds, just a week before an election when related issues are on the ballot--- Proposition 32 about public employee unions and how they operate and Proposition 30 about how public funds are expended.  UTLA seemingly has no compunctions about their decision---no measure of academic achievement can enter the realm of teacher evaluation---public relations and election outcomes be damned.

It is a sorry story about the priorities of UTLA. The raison d’etre of the District—the education of its students—obviously takes a back seat to the union’s (not necessarily the teachers’) priorities. After all, Race to the Top is not the creature of a right-wing, anti-union cabal out to undermine unions and their members; it is the proud achievement of President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, an effort to reform a dysfunctional system that cries out for change.

But even the administration’s modest move towards some use of metrics that assess teacher quality and effectiveness is toxic to UTLA. They just won’t allow it, no matter if LA's kids pay the price.

A very sad story and a dreadful outcome. .

August 28, 2012 | 4:15 pm

The Absence of Zev

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Zev Yaroslavsky. Photo courtesy zev.lacounty.gov

The news is bittersweet. On the one hand a public servant who has dedicated nearly forty years of his life to the Los Angeles community will be unburdened from the demands of a public that wants him virtually every day and night of the week (whether it’s this group’s board meeting or that neighborhood council or the major donor who would like to “show him off” to friends), Zev Yaroslavsky has led a career of rarely saying no to his constituents. On the other hand, Los Angeles will be losing the chance to elect the one potential mayoral candidate that might have set our fiscal house in order.

Last year I blogged about county redistricting and noted that “ Zev Yaroslavsky is the most important local elected Jewish official is beyond dispute. For over three decades he has been a voice of reason and courage for, to and in the Jewish community.” That observation could easily have been expanded to say he has been among the most thoughtful, principled, and straightforward elected officials in California over the past forty years and his presence will be sorely missed.

In the world of the organized Jewish community, there is nothing easier than to come to meeting of Jewish leadership and talk about anti-Semitism, the fate of Israel, or hate crimes—-those were the trifecta of issues that would assure a warm reception and lots of applause. It was the rare politician who came to the ADL and talked about an issue that might make the audience feel uncomfortable or insecure as to where the speech was going.

I distinctly remember Zev coming to board meetings and talking about homelessness and the horrible living conditions that prevailed in many areas of Los Angeles with two and three families living in one apartment, etc. It was not a topic the attendees had expected or felt at ease with but Zev felt it was an important one that needed attention and his listeners needed an education. It wasn’t the easy route, just the right one.

I remember his principled and vocal position against unauthorized surveillance by the Los Angeles Police Department’s Public Disorder/Intelligence Division (“PDID”) in the 1980s. A not particularly popular position, especially at that time, but, as it turned out, it was the right one.

Years later when the Orange Line Transit way was under consideration across the San Fernando Valley (in the existing railway right-of-way) in North Hollywood it was Zev who was willing to stand up to constituents who alleged that their religious observances might be compromised by having buses running in the right-of-way on the Sabbath. He was roundly criticized, but he stood his ground as few politicians would—-especially in dealing with constituents who populate his base. 

His courage in speaking out on the mess that was health care delivery at King-Drew Medical Center—-despite charges of being a racist when he demanded that the quality of care at King-Drew ought to be the same as at the best hospitals in LA; his tough stand on plans to decimate his supervisorial district in the latest reapportionment effort; and his steadfast commitment to fiscal integrity and transparency (one reason that the County of LA is in much better financial shape than the City which he left nearly two decades ago) are all further evidence of a commitment to principles that is all too rare among politicians, local or national.

There are precious few politicians, at any level, who have accumulated the record that Zev has amassed over the past four decades and done so without any hint of scandal, double dealing, or compromising values; no mean feat in an environment where every move a politician makes is scrutinized and open to bloggers, political paparazzi and plain old cynics.

To Zev, congratulations on a job exceedingly well done—and good luck on two more years of accomplishments and a long and rewarding life after public service.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

July 20, 2012 | 4:46 pm

The Progress is (In)Visible

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

The view at 4:00 with the temperature over 80.

Yesterday seemed like the first really hot day in a long time, the temperature was in the high 80s to 90s and the evening remained warm with virtually no breeze. Despite the heat, it was remarkably clear.

From my thirty third floor perch in a Downtown office building I couldn’t help but notice how remarkable the vistas were. I could watch the planes as they descended into LA International and on the drive home the San Gabriel Mountains were exceptionally sharp—virtually no haze or smog, no brown gunk obscuring the view.

Just a few years ago, the notion that the temperatures could be in the 80s and the sky could be blue seemed impossible. In fact, Angelenos of my vintage recall that when they participated in PE or physically exerted themselves in the 1950s and 60s the effort of simply catching a deep breath on a smoggy day was daunting (one’s chest would grip up and a coughing fit was inevitable).

Yesterday’s view was so crisp and clear that I had to research how far we had come in the past few decades.

Sure enough the data are impressive yet, surprisingly, little discussed. In 1976 the LA Basin had, depending on which federal clean air standard you use (the “old”, the 1997 or the 2008 standard), 28 times [old], 3 times [1997 standard] or more than twice [new standard] as many days exceeding “Health Standard Levels” as in 2010.  We have gone from 102 days of Stage 1 episodes of high smog concentrations in 1976 to having one day of a Stage 1 episode since 1999.

This dramatic turnaround of what seemed like a hopeless endeavor just a few decades ago—-more people and more cars seemed to insure worsening air quality—-has taken place despite a dramatic increase of 38% in the population of Los Angeles County (from 7,082,000 in 1970 to an estimated 9,800,000 in 2010) and a concomitant increase in cars, trucks, trailers and motorcycles of 20% in the last thirteen years alone. I suspect the increase in cars and trucks would mirror that of the population were it extrapolated back to 1970 (I couldn’t find the data).

I can understand the reluctance to “crow about the success” by air quality officials and others who are responsible for the transformation; as one former official told me, “the AQMD doesn’t brag enough about it because we have much left to do.” Additionally, he noted that “the air we can’t see is really quite harmful…because we have crushed the particles.” 

So, I offer the caveats and admonitions that there is much left to be done and that the “invisible” air that doesn’t mar our vistas still has microscopic particles that are harmful….nevertheless, the reduction in visible smog and the marked decline in both Stage 1 episodes and days in which the various Federal clean air standards are exceeded are achievements to celebrate. On an 87 degree day when the vistas stretch from the ocean to Mt. Wilson and are unsullied by brown gunk and you can take a deep breath without seizing up your lungs, you know that we are moving in the right direction.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

July 6, 2012 | 11:35 am

The Declaration of Independence’s Inclusiveness

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Yesterday’s blog described my visit to the National Museum of American Jewish History and the George Washington letter to the Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island of 1790.

Today’s

Wall Street Journa

l has an op/ed by law professor Michael Meyerson titled “Was the Declaration of Independence Christian?” which concludes that the document was “deliberately designed to be as inclusive as possible, it was a quintessentially American achievement—-specific enough to be embraceable by those with orthodox religious views but broad enough to permit each American to feel fully included and equally respected.”

The Declaration of Independence (1776) antedated the Washington letter (1790) to the Newport community by fourteen years, yet its sentiment clearly set the tone of tolerance that Washington later reflected as president.

Was the Declaration of Independence Christian?
The religious phrases in our founding document were deliberately designed to be as inclusive as possible.
By MICHAEL I. MEYERSON
 
Americans of all political stripes invoked the Declaration of Independence this Fourth of July week. Some read the document and found, as Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz has, that it “rejected Christianity, along with other organized religions, as a basis for governance.” Others saw the same language proving the opposite, that our nation was founded on “Judeo- Christian values.” Such definitive statements do not tell the full story. The American Framers, in their desire to unite a nation, were theologically bilingual—not only in the Declaration of Independence but beyond.

Read more at The Wall Street Journal.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

July 5, 2012 | 4:25 pm

A 220 Year Old Lesson

Posted by  David A. Lehrer

Last Friday, while on a family vacation in Philadelphia, my wife and I visited the new National Museum of American Jewish History on Independence Square. We toured the wonderful exhibit that chronicles American Jewish history from the first immigrants to the current period. The permanent exhibit alone is worth a few hours of touring.

We were especially lucky to be present the first day of a new exhibit that runs until the end of September: “To Bigotry No Sanction—George Washington and Religious Freedom.” The exhibit centers on the August 1790 letter that Washington sent to the “Hebrew Congregation at Newport, Rhode Island.” The Museum recently acquired the original letter which had been hidden away for the past decade. Due to the delicacy of the original, it can only be on display three months a year.

It is an extraordinary document that is especially worthy of attention in the days surrounding July 4th.  The letter was handwritten by Washington shortly after he received a letter from Moses Seixas, the “warden” of the Newport synagogue. In the letter Seixas welcomed Washington to Newport and thanked God for having led the Jews to America:

Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People…generously affording to all Liberty of conscience, and immunities of citizenship: deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language equal parts of the great governmental Machine….we desire to send up our thanks to the Ancient of Days, the great preserver of Men beseeching him, that the Angel who conducted our forefathers through the wilderness to the promised land, may graciously conduct you through all the difficulties and dangers of mortal life. And when, like Joshua full of days and full of honour, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly Paradise to partake of the after of life and the tree of immortality.

In Washington’s response a few days later he laid out a vision of religious tolerance that likely had no historic precedent (the French legislation emancipating its Jews was not adopted until September, 1791).

In a few, terribly moving few paragraphs, Washington declares that, “the citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.”

In beautiful prose he invokes the words that Seixas had included in his letter that, “happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving on all occasion their effectual support.”

In what is a rather prescient view of societal dynamics, Washington makes clear that it is really not for one set of citizens to express “toleration” for another, acceptance is not theirs to give. Liberty is, after all, the exercise by the minority of their “inherent natural rights.”

Below is the full text of Washington’s letter, it’s worth a read.

It probably needn’t be noted, but the exquisite language of tolerance that Washington expressed in 1790 did not extend to either slaves or women or Native Americans and did not reflect itself in the laws of many of the states which had attitudes that were considerably less benign. The Emancipation Proclamation (freeing the slaves) was seventy three years and a civil war away. And as recently as the past decade seven states still had statutes on the books (though unenforceable) that had religious tests for holding office.

Notwithstanding the fact that Washington’s vision took a while to realize—-“every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid”—it was an aspiration that helped set the bar for what America was to become, a nation that “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”

Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport

George Washington

August 1790