Re “It Is Time to Protect Parent-Donated Services” and “When Did ‘Union’ Become a Four-Letter Word in Culver City?”
Second of two parts
[Yesterday’s Summary: David Mielke’s opinion piece on Monday reminds us that it is the union’s job to advocate for its members. That’s a good thing, and he, as President of the Teachers Union, should continue. However, it is our job as parents to advocate for our children. And that’s a good thing, too. Hopefully, the School Board, too, will keep its focus on what is best for our children throughout this process. I would like to acknowledge that Mr. Mielke writes an interesting piece and raises important questions. I am responding to Mr. Mielke's questions from the parents' perspective of what is best for our children. Although Mr. Mielke focuses largely on the language adjuncts at El Marino Language School, those are not the only volunteers at risk in this district. As has become abundantly clear, any volunteer performing work a union believes should be done by their members is at risk. This includes many different kinds of volunteers at many different schools performing many different tasks.]
4. Will parent groups continue to fundraise if control of these programs shifts to CCUSD?
As someone who has been involved with the fundraising for these very activities for more than 10 years, I can tell you unequivocally the answer: Fundraising will diminish substantially. Ask any parent on the ALLEM (Advocates for Learning Language, El Marino) board or any parent who fundraises for or donates to these programs. They will all tell you the same thing. Parents give because they know that all of their money goes into providing a classroom service that the District cannot provide. They count on the fact that their money goes directly to the kids in the classroom instead of administrators, supervisors or other non-classroom overhead costs. That is a huge selling point of the program.
Many donors have expressed deep reservations about turning control of their hard-earned money over to bureaucrats because they know that will result in the children getting fewer services at an increased cost. In fact, every single major donor asked so far has said they will no longer donate at all to the program, if it is taken over by the District. Parents and donors don't want to “trust” that their money will be well spent. They want to know that it will provide the absolute most that it can for the children, before they give. Also, the program has been in existence for over 20 years. Nobody can explain to any donor why their costs should increase to provide exactly the same services, especially in these hard economic times.
5. Does CCUSD need a consistent set of rules for all parent groups? Or can policies be set, site-by-site, according to each school's particular issues?
Our schools are all different. Each one already has site-by-site differences, depending on their particular issues and areas of emphasis. We need to consistently provide each school with the widest array of choices, programs and solutions to their problems. This is not a one-size-fits-all District. Nor do I want it to become one. That is why parents from all schools are asking the School Board to protect and provide every single volunteer option legally available, for use by every single school in this District.
No solution should be taken away from any school. No solution should be denied to any school. Each school's needs also evolve over time. Each school should be able to pick and choose from a variety of solutions to address its particular needs at any given time. I think one of the strengths of our District is that it allows each school to address its individual needs. Now the School Board needs to adopt a policy that supports and protects the largest variety of parent-provided solutions so that the right solution is available when a school needs it.
Besides, if one only is focused on consistency rather than flexibility, wouldn't it make more sense to use the longest-running, highly successful and academically-proven donated services program in the District (the El Marino adjuncts) as a model, rather than trying to tear it down?
6. When does it become an educational fairness issue when students at School A have classroom aides while students at School B do not?
This is a false choice. I refuse to try to create “fairness” by taking the classroom aides away from School A, and I refuse to believe that CCUSD is all about finding the lowest common denominator of school support and aiming for that.
Mr. Mielke's question suggests that this debate is about equal access, but the facts indicate otherwise. For example, the District provides aides for Lin Howe students because Lin Howe parents reimburse the District for them. Lin Howe will get as many classroom aides as they pay for. No other school will get an aide because Lin Howe parents pay for one. The union is fine with that, and so am I. In other words, the debate is not about whether some schools get what others do not; it’s about how many members the union gets to have.
(If the issue were fairness or helping the schools with fewer resources, why did the union choose a low-income, Title I school as its first target in taking over parent-supported programs?)
Fairness, in general, though, is a difficult issue. It never should be used to tear down or destroy what any school has built up. El Marino receives less money per student than other schools in the District. Is that fair? El Marino has half-day kindergartens while every other elementary school has full-day kindergarten. Is that fair? At La Ballona, parents can choose between an immersion or English curriculum; other schools offer one or the other. Is that fair? El Rincon has a science lab better than those at the Middle School. Is that fair? The list goes on. I don’t view these things as inequities. I view them as marvelous examples of the differences, opportunities and varied strengths of our schools. Let’s not try to create “fairness” by taking things away from students, whether it be classroom aides paid for by parents, programs or equipment. Just the idea is abhorrent.
Instead of asking whether any particular, isolated circumstance is fair to one group or another, ask yourself, “What is fair to our children?” The answer is: Maximizing the resources in their classrooms, especially when it costs the District nothing.
Regardless of whether you agree with my comments, I hope everyone will stop the name-calling and focus on the best way to support our children's education. I don't appreciate being called “anti-union” just because I disagree with what a particular union in a particular situation is doing. I hope we can keep the debate thoughtful, the tone respectful and the arguments focused on making sure the District provides the best education possible for our children.
We should all also be able to agree that our common goal is to make all Culver City schools the best they can be. Let’s take all the energy going into this miserable turf grab and direct it to supporting all of the parent groups at all the schools, in all of their diversity of programs. Let’s assist and support all of them in becoming powerful advocates for and allies of their kids and schools. There is plenty of proof this is possible. Instead of attacking success, let’s replicate it. In that spirit, I urge you to support those parents from every school in the District who are trying to get the School Board to pass a policy protecting all parent-supported programs, in whatever form, to the maximum extent of the law. We do not want our Board to choose one. We want them to support all of our schools' programs.
Sandi Levin, parent advocate, may be contacted at slevin@cllaw.us
