2500 LAYOFFS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA: GUESS WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR 20% OF THEM?

This just in: the ESUHSD notified over 750 employees, including tenured staff, that they would be laid off for the coming school year. While the district "assures" the media that most of these teachers will be hired back, the level of trust between employees and management is so low that there might not be anyone returning to teach in the East Side. As one Unruly reader informs us, "If Campbell and San Jose Unified were smart, they'd send letters to every credentialed teacher who was laid off to ensure they complied with No Child Left Behind regulations. The East Side would be doubly screwed."

Teachers have been left dumbstruck by the district's ploy. But if you're a loyal Unruly reader, you know this pattern of behavior isn't new.

We were intending to save some of these articles for future issues, butt in light of this week's events, another blast from the past is appropriate. During her tenure in Indianapolis, Zendejas managed to outrage parents so much that they organized protests all the way up to the state legislature. Read this article from the Indy Star archives; we'll help you read between the lines with the post analysis. And if you are one of the Board members who secretly read the Advocate (we know Mann, Herrera, and Nguyen have), take note of the first few paragraphs.

Parents now calling the IPS shots
by ANDREA NEAL

In 1996, Indianapolis Public Schools faced another in a string of financial crises. A $7.5 million deficit loomed and Superintendent Esperanza Zendejas was desperately seeking ways to balance the books.

The solution - layoffs of "non-essential" teachers in phys ed, music and the arts - so enraged a group of Northside parents that it proved to be a turning point for IPS.

After getting mad, they organized into a lobbying group, Parents for Public Education, to protest the layoffs, ask for more funding and advocate their children's interests before the state legislature and board. Next, they decided to get even.

With four of seven IPS commissioner seats on the ballot May 5, the parents recruited, endorsed and got out the vote for those it felt would best represent them. Three of its four candidates won; only one endorsed by Mayor Stephen Goldsmith and the reform-minded Alliance for Quality Schools was elected.

Staying the Course

In a school district plagued by low test scores and high dropout rates, the outcome of any board election is significant. Goldsmith fears this one means a "stay-the-course" mentality rather than systemic changes, like school choice and charter schools, he deems necessary to stop IPS flight.

He may be right. Only Delores Brents, the Alliance candidate who defeated incumbent Hazel Stewart, has supported vouchers to allow poor parents to send children to private schools. And Brents has quickly retreated from that position, saying she didn't campaign on choice and has no plans to make it an issue on the board.

On the other hand, two board newcomers are strong advocates of neighborhood schools and site-based decision-making, concepts that could go a long way toward improving IPS.

The Rev. Michael Brown says he believes neighborhood schools can be restored, even without a lifting of Judge S. Hugh Dillin's desegregation order. "If I live on one side of the street and you live on the other, we shouldn't end up going to different schools," he says.

Brown volunteers 20-plus hours a week at his child's school, No. 109, which may be the only neighborhood school in IPS; all the children walk there.

Kelly Bentley, whose children attend the high-scoring School 91 Montessori option, says her priority is to expand magnet and option programs, which have long waiting lists, and give schools, teachers and parents more authority to make decisions rather than mindlessly following rules set by central office. If you do that, she says, you end up with the same result as charter schools, the independent schools freed from government regulation that Goldsmith advocates.

From the parents' side

If there's any mandate from the election, it's to better represent parents who have stuck with IPS, says Maureen Jayne of Parents for Public Education. Shouldn't their opinions count more than those of the mayor, business community or families that have left? she asks.

"We want to be heard," says Jayne. "We didn't have that a year ago. We talked until we were blue in the face while they closed schools and fired principals ... We were ignored."

IPS parents will no longer be ignored, and that's a good thing. But Goldsmith is also right that the board must worry about the parents who have given up on IPS. At the rate it's going, it won't be the state's largest school district for long.

No matter how strongly they disagree, the board and the mayor must set aside differences and work toward common goals.

"I'd be delighted to work with the school board," Goldsmith offers. "If they can come up with a group of schools to truly make autonomous, we'll help show how they can regenerate a neighborhood."

Reform is possible, even without board support of Goldsmith's more drastic proposals for vouchers or charter schools. Creating neighborhood schools again is a good place to start.

Neal is chief editorial writer for The Star. Her e-mail address is aneal@netdirect.net.

What's the lesson? Zendejas' behavior in IPS pissed off so many parents that they rallied and got three new people elected. (Attention Board members with political aspirations, especially the ones from the Evergreen area who might want to replace Dave Cortese on City Council if he becomes San Jose's next mayor: angry parents=angry voters) Most voters don't pay attention to school board elections. But they do when they're angry, and East Side's Board has done more than enough to get people angry.

Of course, the lion's share of the blame falls on Zendejas. Want to hear what Zendejas really thinks of teachers? Read this revealing letter to the editor written by a community member during IPS' Napoleonic era:

Low morale

What a chilling week it was when, in the space of a few days, I heard two public officials declare with pride that they were not concerned that staff morale in their parts of our city is low.

The first time was by Indianapolis Public Schools Superintendent Esperanza Zendejas, at a fund-raising luncheon for private school vouchers. Her comment was wildly applauded.

The second was by Police Chief Michael Zunk, as he was leaving the IPD North District station after a special meeting called to address the very issue of morale.

When did statements like this become not only acceptable but applauded?

Police officers and teachers deal with children, neighbors and folks with all sorts of needs. They deal with us.

I challenge all of us and city leaders to drive out such attitudes and to demand that Esperanza and Zunk be held accountable to support teachers, school staff and police officers. We must insist they advocate for the resources that will allow their staffs to do difficult jobs in a reasonable and competent way.

When public officials make such outrageous statements as not caring about the morale of their staff, we need a strong public outcry. DOROTHEA KING Indianapolis

It's simple. She doesn't care about your morale. She doesn't care about your pink slip. She doesn't consider the arts or P.E. "essential".

She doesn't provide hope for our children.

She does, however, like the idea of private school vouchers:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13462

In case you haven't heard, on Saturday, March 19, the ESUHSD will have a booth at the Santa Clara County job fair. Bring your resume and a copy of your pink slip. Stay at home? They win. Show up and they get scared. Now more than ever, it's time to get unruly!