THE ALTERNATIVE REALITY OF LAUSD SUPT. AUSTIN BEUTNER

Beutner.jpgWhat is most disingenuous about the L.A. Times "Reporter" Howard Blume's latest article entitled "LAUSD chief signals desire to limit teacher job protections and change funding rules" is that virtually nothing in the article is even remotely true. And worst yet, ersatz "Reporter" Blume knows it's not true. But at least he's got a good excuse for not telling the truth, since at the L.A. Times, they have gone from 1400 to 350 reporters. And where all remaining reporters like Blume know full well that they too will be out the door, if they even attempt to actually report the truth as to what is going on at LAUSD and elsewhere.

Howard Blum knows the truth and at an earlier time in his reporting life, when he was a real reporter, Blum might just have posed some of the following questions to Supt. Beutner:

You now talk about wanting to "limit teacher job protections," but given the assault LAUSD has already waged against more expensive high seniority teachers over at least the last 10 years for their sole "crime" of being at the top of the salary scale, can you tell me Supt. Beutner what real job protections do any LAUSD teachers still have?

How many thousand teachers with no prior negative evaluations- 73% of whom are over 40 and at the top of the salary scale- have you and your immediate predecessors gotten rid of on completely fabricated charges in order to balance your budget and avoid a nonetheless impending bankruptcy?

If LAUSD is in such dire financial straits, why has the number of administrators dramatically increased over the last few years, while the number of teachers has dramatically gone down? Aren't teachers more indispensible than administrators?

If you truly believe that good teachers are so important, why is it that the only upward mobility at LAUSD is clearly defined by getting out of teaching and into administration? Given that good teachers work as hard, if not harder than administrators. Why not pay teachers more money than administrators, who in reality sit in an office and don't have to deal with overfilled classrooms of 40 plus students, the majority of whom are profoundly behind grade-level?

How can LAUSD "improve academics" by having your administrators continue a long standing LAUSD policy of intimidating teachers year after year into giving passing grades and socially promoting students, who remain profoundly behind grade-level? Doesn't this unnecessarily doom these once natively intelligent students to a life of what would have been easily avoidable failure through timely education?

You want "Sacramento to change the way it determines funding" to base it on registration and not in-seat attendance. But isn't there already chronic truancy that has gone unaddressed by LAUSD? And don't we have in-seat ADA, instead of payment by enrollment, because of prior LAUSD manipulation of that system, when payment by enrollment was in place?

Haven't actual attendance figures already been doctored by your administrators in actions that amounts to defrauding of the State of California for Average Daily Attendance (ADA) money?

You say, "We need a transparent, efficient and fair process to manage ineffective teachers out." What about a process that removes ineffective administrators who fix grades, assessments, and attendance- which has created the present problems- while targeting effective teachers who have the temerity of reporting blatant LAUSD administrative corruption.

You talk about how "an ineffective teacher can cause students to lose more than a year of learning, which is setting students up for failure." But isn't the reality that it is the administration which has already year after year been setting these students up for failure by continuing to socially promote them without mastery of basic core prerequisite skills they would need in higher grade levels? Or put simply, why is the teacher "ineffective," if for example, he is trying to teach a 12th grade Government class to a student with a 3rd grade reading level? Why aren't you questioning how this student got pushed through prior grade after grade without any administrator ever putting this student in an appropriate program at their subjective and appropriate grade-level?

Is it foreseeable that students put in classes years beyond their subjective- easily verifiable level- might be purposefully disruptive in class, instead of allowing themselves to be publicly humilated in front of their peer group with academic materials they couldn't possibly know?

Given the 50% turnover of teachers within 5 years at LAUSD, do you really think the problem is too easy tenure? Or is it the inability of teachers to teach because the vast majority of their students are not at grade-level, due to LAUSD administration's complete unwillingness to take cognizance of where LAUSD students are really at academically and why?

You say "More state funding...is sorely needed." But how much more state funding would be presently available, if LAUSD administration timely dealt with an existing 52% chronic truancy rate that already profoundly cuts into LAUSD's Average Daily Attendance money from the State?

You note "the correlation between poverty and chronic absences." But students socially promoted without mastery of prior grade-level standards are predictably ignorant...but they are not stupid. Why doesn't it occur to you that students are not coming to school as the poor of previous generations did, because LAUSD as presently run does not address their academic needs in any meaningful manner.

14

09 2018

1 Comment

In response to your recent Perdaily post, I sadly concur with your observations referring to the recently printed article in the LA Times, Beutner shows his hand on plan for L.A. Unified. This article is merely Blume and Beutner pontificating on what Trump calls “FAKE NEWS”.

As a CPA, and a former LAUSD student, who has been concerned about a 50% plus of the enrolled per year LAUSD KIDS not receiving a “free” public education as a prerequisite to becoming above the poverty line future taxpayers.

My concern has had me investigating, as a concerned taxpayer since 2005, as to why numerous compliance failures as to at least State Education Code Section 48262 and 48321 by LAUSD have never been investigated by any independent government entity.

Concurrently while investing these LAUSD failures, I was told by elected officials and their staff within at least LA County that it was “not my job” to meddle in the affairs of LAUSD, as to some 300,000 per year habitual truants at LAUSD, most known to be on the streets during school hours, and most ignored until they are a victim of a crime or “we the people” become a victim of a crime they committed.

These reviews by me of the data made public, via numerous California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests is why LAUSD in 2018, in my opinion, is in a dire financial position; and now potentially headed for bankruptcy, leaving teachers, non-certificated employees and administration soon to be scrambling to avoid becoming potentially our future homeless.

Thus, I ask you why since Proposition 30 passed in 2012, did LAUSD now in 2018 need to report a 25% Chronic Truancy Rate as to KIDS in Kindergarten; if not because LAUSD Board ignored them, continuing to ignore them as they grow older, and then become those potentially victims of child abuse at a school or in at home, or those then potentially headed to the “pipelines to prisons”, or homeless and or worse possibly found Dead in the streets of LA – get the picture?

Therefore, now asked differently, what if there had been “collaboration” within LA County by Local Government with LAUSD schools in accordance with the Proposition 30 promise for “accountability”?

Asked as following:
1. Could a Yonatan Aguilar be alive today. He was the boy found dead in a closet in 2016, after being locked up for about four years. Had LAUSD reported him to a Student Attendance Review Board (SARB) hearing in 2012 for then local government to have investigated if child abuse at a Home?
2. Which begs the added question, had LAUSD tracked and data shared a 78% Sal Castro Middle School Habitual Truancy Rate for the year ended June 30, 2016 [Kids not in schools more than three times in a given year unexcused] with Local Government (City and County offices) might the recent school shooting at Sal Castro been avoided; knowing that this school was one of the twenty-one (21) school shootings reported in the LA Times that occurred to date this year nationwide?
3. And, now in 2018 did Anthony Avalos need to die, as reported by the media, as to another Child Abuse case occurring, now in Lancaster, and the “early warning” signs the media reported were again ignored by County staff?
4. Could now the recent death at Trader Joe’s been avoided, if this troubled youth was tracked ten plus years ago, while being incorrectly assumed enrolled at a school?

Below is how, within at least LA County, at least at LAUSD schools, LAUSD is capable, at ZERO added cost, via the LAUSD computer software tracking systems, dubbed MiSiS, become now into compliance with the 2012 voter passed Proposition 30 promise for “Accountability”, never properly implemented, leaving truants to be potential victims of Child Abuse and leaving “we the people” in LA County at risk for another shooting – get the picture?

In closing, in my opinion it is time for a LAUSD Board to now go ask staff why the promise for 2012 voter passed Proposition 30 has not been properly implemented to avoid bankruptcy and find the needed funds, up to $15,000 per truant per year, who is currently not in school, via ‘Accountability”, to avoid a Teacher Strike.

Thomas D. Carter, CPA – AKA Mr. Flashlight shining his light on the truth
After three (3) unexcused truancies send Student Attendance Review Board (SARB)
required Letter 1 to Parents and Guardians and send electronic notice to Local Government.

After six (6) unexcused truancies send Student Attendance Review Board (SARB)
Letter 2 to Parents and Guardians and send electronic notice to Local Government;
and initiate a SARB hearing with Local Government offices participating. Ed Code Section 48321 ignored.

After nine (9) unexcused truancies send Student Attendance Review Board (SARB)
Letter 3 to Parents and Guardians and send electronic notice to Local Government;
and have Local Government investigate if child abuse or bogus reporting. Ignored

After eighteen (18) unexcused truancies have County DA initiate an investigation
in accordance with the Proposition 30 promise for "Accountability" (LCFF Priority # 5),
activating Penal Code Section 270.1. And, ignored it appears is also ESSA


Leave a comment