Press Release
PRESS RELEASE #16
June 11, 2010
By Leonard James Martin
Candidate for the State of California Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
THE CAMPAIGN GOES ON!
Neither I nor most of my supporters expected a better result on election night. While the defeat was disappointing, we were gratified by the fact that over 96,000 Californians took the time to read my platform and consciously decide to vote for me. We had no signs, no media commercials, and no endorsements from the teacher organizations. But teacher association members surely found my platform more to their liking than the generalities offered by the three candidates who garnered the most votes. But teachers felt obligated to support the choice of the CTA/AFT oligarchy. I truly believe that thousands of voters, especially teachers, cast a vote for the candidate endorsed by the unions although they knew I stood more firmly for genuine reform. They were fearful that by not voting for the union-endorsed candidate a powerful advocate of charter schools, weakening of tenure and the disruption of traditional education would end up as superintendent. So to those 96,000 votes we received add thousands more that would have been ours under other circumstances.
The final election is still months away and during that time I urge all of my supporters, whether actual voters or just sympathizers, to put the pressure on the two remaining candidates. Force them to take meaningful stands on what precisely the legislature should do regarding school funding for the coming year, make them explain how they stand on cutting the mis-named “frills” such as art and music in order to save money, what they would do about the insanity of standardized testing, how precisely would they use student test scores in evaluating teachers, what they would do about the need to rapidly teach effective English to ESL students, and each and every one of the dozens of other items I so carefully detailed in my platform. We must put the pressure on both candidates, not accept the usual political or bureaucratic platitudes, and demand straight-forward answers.
So the campaign goes on. I lost, but my candidacy was only important in that I stood for what you also believe in. Our agenda survives, is stronger because I ran, and we must pursue it until victory – which is not the election of a candidate but the achievement of what advocate.
Yes, the campaign continues. Each of you can help by writing letters to editors. Even better, bombard your local daily press with comments written online just below each editorial, op-ed or news article that the paper prints about education. The opponents of public education fill the space the dailies offer to readers. We are more articulate than the naysayers who hate public education – even as they say they are “doing it for the kids.” So let’s use our computers to educate the rest of the public about the danger that self-proclaimed “educational reformers” present. If 96,000 of us would respond to naive editorials and uninformed news stories about education, we can not only preserve the fine schools we already have but can bring about effective change in districts and schools that are truly in need.
The campaign must go on!
Thank you, for your votes last Tuesday and your support during the long campaign.
http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/
http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/platform
Leonard James Martin
For the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
P. O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888
___________________________________________________________
PRESS RELEASE #15
June 10, 2010
By Leonard James Martin
Former Candidate for the State of California Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
Calling on the District Attorney of Los Angeles to investigate
California candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010 Leonard Martin is calling on Los Angeles District Attorney to investigate the conflict of interest and self dealing by LAUSD Superintendent Ramon Cortines for alleging to take money from Scholastic Inc., (http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_14427244 ) Cortines was reported in the Los Angeles Times to have received $150,000.00 from Scholastic Inc., and was also on the board of this profit making operation at the same time the Superintendent was pushing for testing in the schools while his school district was purchasing testing supplies from Scholastic Inc. Martin is also calling for his immediate resignation or firing of LAUSD Superintendent Ramon Cortines.
cortines_is_crooked.jpg
A growing corruption scandal is developing with the introduction of privatized charter schools in Los Angeles. These private operators have used public funds improperly and Cortines along with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa have coerced and pushed the privatization of the schools to benefit corporate funders who are the sponsors of the Broad Foundation, the Gates Foundation and other privateers who are seeking to make education profit centers. Martin also calls for Superintendent Cortines to immediately resign or be removed from his position due to his blatant and allege illegal conflict of interest.
Also Martin is calling on the District Attorney of Los Angeles to investigate the former NASA/Boeing plant now known as the Downey Landing, Developer Stuart Lichter for alleging to fail to clean up the superfund allege toxic dump site (http://www.alternet.org/environment/145508/downey_flu:_how_an_l.a._suburb_became_one_of_the_most_toxic_towns ) that was privatized since Los Angeles County Office of Education LACOE workers and workers at Downey Studios and the Downey Kaiser Hospital have allege to have been injured from the construction of Downey Landing. Martin says that Lichter should be investigated for workers comp fraud.
Additional charges on LACOE and other facilities
Martin also calls on the Los Angeles District Attorney to investigate the epidemic of illnesses at the Los Angeles County Office of Education buildings located next to the Downey Landing. LACOE employees at the Downey site along with Kaiser Downey hospital workers and Downey Movie studio personnel have been sickened by the failure of the developer to properly clean up the site. Injured workers including at all sites may have died and suffered serious illnesses as a direct result of the failure of the developer, Stuart Lichter, to properly clean up the site.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/02/business/fi-ct-downey2
Martin along with other injured Downey workers allege that Stuart Lichter has engaged in workers’ comp fraud by forcing sick employees at his studios and other locations on or near the former super-fund toxic dump site to fight for their healthcare and compensation.
http://www.thedowneypatriot.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Is+Downey+Studios+safe-%20&id=3114137-Is+Downey+Studios+safe-&instance=home_news_1st_left
Martin calls for the filing of charges with the Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and the Los Angeles District Attorney Workers Comp Fraud Unit to investigate these charges. He will also be joined in his complaints with other concerned residents of Los Angeles County.
Although the election is over I will continue to work to defend our education system and make the changes to again have a fine educational system. The issues I have raised will continue to be issues and I will work to educate the public and the education community about a program to defend the future of our children and our society.
http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/
http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/platform
Leonard James Martin
For the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
Leonardj.martin@gmail.com
P. O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888
__________________________________________________________
PRESS RELEASE #14
May 28, 2010
By Leonard James Martin
Candidate for the State of California Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
KIDS NEED A FORWARD-LOOKING, NOT AN ETHNIC, SUPERINTENDENT
It is regrettable that one of the leading candidates for state superintendent of public instruction is regularly referred to by her ethnicity. Gloria Romero was repeatedly presented as a Latino Democrat, supported by Latino activists, and a successful Latino legislator in recent editorial endorsements. We don’t need a Latino superintendent. We need a forward-looking one who advocates genuine reform, not the debilitating changes Romero has pushed through the state legislature.
Voters on June 8 should not go to the polls to support a candidate because of ethnicity. There is no, and should not be, a Black way to teach math, or WASP method to teach spelling, no Hispanic approach to economics, nor Asian American lesson plan for teaching literature. Yet there is the impossibility that this election will be determined by ethnic loyalties instead of by loyalty to the kids.
The office of superintendent should not be a stepping stone to higher political office. Unfortunately, two of the leading candidates are termed out legislators looking for another four year job in Sacramento, with the possibility of moving on to higher office when the superintendent’s term ends. Max Rafferty turned the office into a successful run for the U. S. Senate. In recent years state Insurance Commissioners have done the same thing, spending more thought on that run for governor than on doing the work of the office they held.
We need a superintendent whose views are supportive of public education, not one whose interests lie with billionaire philanthropists and hedge fund Democrats whose real interest is in privatizing our schools. Ethnic groups who want to improve our traditional public schools should not be misled by the belief that a candidate from their particular group must be supported regardless of the candidates’ position on the real issues of this campaign. Romero’s election might be a boost to all Latinos, but her plan for the state’s school kids will only harm Latino children.
By now we should be past the point of having to elect a candidate who will represent a particular ethnic group. This is especially true of a Latino candidate since the state legislature has been dominated in recent years by a series of Latino senators and assemblymen. Even city government in the state’s major cities has a powerful bloc of Latino leadership.
On June 8 voters for superintendent should cast their ballots on the basis of where the candidate stands on educational matters. If voters want a candidate who will cut the education budget, demean teachers, close schools, weaken tenure, kowtow to Washington’s mad race to the bottom through weakening traditional schools and promoting charters – then vote for a candidate who holds those views. But if you don’t believe in those goals, don’t mark your ballot for a candidate supporting those ideas simply because of that candidate’s ethnicity.
http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/
http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/platform
Leonard James Martin
For the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
P. O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888
__________________________________________________________
PRESS RELEASE #13 – Correcting and changing the wording from Illegal Immigrants to Immigrants without papers.
May 25, 2010By Leonard James MartinCandidate for the State of California Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
EDUCATING THE CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS WITHOUT PAPERS AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE
MAKE THE MULTI-NATIONALS AND CORPORATIONS PAY FOR EDUCATION FOR ALL
A voter asked: “Do you Support or Oppose spending taxpayer money to educate the children of illegal immigrant”
Listening to Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner you’d think that was the most important question in this election. Whitman wimps out, in her TV commercial, by ignoring K-12 students, saying only that she would not spend taxpayer dollars on illegal immigrants seeking higher education. Poizner’s commercials ignore the question but give the same impression that voters are apparently supposed to get from Whitman: they would deport all workers without papers.
The question the voter raised, and the statements by both Poizner and Whitman, make no distinction between children of immigrants without papers who are born here and those children who come here without documentation, which is a significant distinction. Assuming the voter’s question is only about kids who are themselves here without papers, the answer is obvious. As long as the nation allows immigrants without papers to live and work in California, with the assumption that these children will become permanent residents of this state, we had better educate them to the full extent that we can.
To refuse education but allow them to remain in the state would create an intolerable condition for all of us. You would have a permanent population of unemployed living in poverty, with crime as a reasonable outcome.
Or, we can educate immigrants without papers and create a self-supporting population that will contribute to the well being of all of us.
To take the short-sighted position that we can save a lot of money by refusing to educate immigrants without papers is to head in the direction of chaos. If that’s what you want, vote for a Whitman/Poizner-type running for superintendent. But if you really want to deal with the situation in a realistic way, elect someone who recognizes the folly of the “Stop educating illegals” position.
When the federal government is ready to create a civil war – do you really want that? – by attempting to deport an estimated twelve million immigrants without papers and their children, many of whom are legally citizens of the U S, then you can seriously raise the question of no longer paying for the education of immigrant children without papers. But in the midst of potentially great riots that will destroy our cities, there may not be many schools left to educate any kids.
This policy of “scapegoating” immigrant workers has a long history in the United States. In fact during the 1930’s there were massive raids and deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrant Mexican workers as well as many US citizens by the Democratic Roosevelt administration. These US citizens are still fighting for compensation after being illegally removed from their own country. Blaming immigrant workers for the economic crisis caused by the capitalist system is the same reactionary tactic of those who do not want to blame the system that created this crisis but instead want to blame immigrants and their families. The recent racist law SB 1070 passed by Arizona and the escalating attack on immigrant workers and their children is a threat to not only immigrants and Latinos but all working people in the United States.
To those who would refuse education to immigrant children without papers here: When was the last time you asked your gardener for a green card? Or the guys who put on your new roof? What about the assistant who helped your painter, or the termite inspector, or dozens of other people who do work for you either daily or from time to time? It is one thing to speak theoretically about removing immigrants without papers who, it is claimed, are a great financial burden on the country or our schools. It is another to think practically about just who these immigrants are.It is also important to recognize that it is the very policies of the US government, both Democrats and Republicans, who have pushed NAFTA and the WTO which privatized the rail, telecom and other industries as well as driving the peasants off the land have created even greater migration to the US. It is no accident that there are big billionaires in Mexico. These billionaires with the support of US multi-nationals and US politicians have looted the public resources and driven workers out of their jobs in Mexico, forcing them to come to the United States for work. Is it any accident that the drug wars are on the border where US multi-nationals built factories at cheap labor with no infrastructure for the people on the border towns. Building border walls will not stop this migration. It is the very economic policies passed by the Democrats and Republicans who are controlled by the multi-national corporations that have created this crisis. We need to abolish NAFTA and support the public ownership of those resources that have been privatized for greater profits of the billionaires. This will help the Mexican working people and the US people who also have paid the cost of NAFTA. The massive wealth that has been extracted from the working people of Mexico and US by outsourcing their jobs, cutting wages and pitting the working people of one country against another should be used to pay for education of all people in the United States and Mexico. It is also significant while these immigrant bashing politicians like Whitman and Poizner do not call for ending the right of the corporations to have “open borders”. They support the right of the super rich to move their money around for more profits and union busting but want stronger borders for working people.
In both countries there is also a push for privatization of education by the same people like the Gates and Broad Foundation. Their privatization policies will destroy education for working people and is making education a profit-making venture for the corporations and the rich. Is this what we need for our children? I think not.
My position may not satisfy the voter who raised the question, but it is a lot closer to reality than the political ads telecast by Meg Whitman or Steve Poizner.
http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/
http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/platform
Leonard James Martin
For the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
P. O. Box 802888Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888
___________________________________________________________
PRESS RELEASE #12
May 24, 2010
By Leonard James Martin
Candidate for the State of California Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
EDUCATING THE CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE
A voter asked: “Do you Support or Oppose spending taxpayer money to educate the children of illegal immigrants?”
Listening to Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner you’d think that was the most important question in this election. Whitman wimps out, in her TV commercial, by ignoring K-12 students, saying only that she would not spend taxpayer dollars on illegal immigrants seeking higher education. Poizner’s commercials ignore the question but give the same impression that voters are apparently supposed to get from Whitman: they would deport illegals.
The question the voter raised, and the statements by both Poizner and Whitman, make no distinction between children of illegals who are born here and those children who come here illegally, which is a significant distinction. Assuming the voter’s question is only about kids who are themselves illegally here, the answer is obvious. As long as the nation allows illegals to live and work in California, with the assumption that these children will become permanent residents of this state, we had better educate them to the full extent that we can.
To refuse education but allow them to remain in the state would create an intolerable condition for all of us. You would have a permanent population of unemployed living in poverty, with crime as a reasonable outcome.
Or, we can educate illegals and create a self-supporting population that will contribute to the well being of all of us.
To take the short-sighted position that we can save a lot of money by refusing to educate illegals is to head in the direction of chaos. If that’s what you want, vote for a Whitman/Poizner-type running for superintendent. But if you really want to deal with the situation in a realistic way, elect someone who recognizes the folly of the “Stop educating illegals” position.
When the federal government is ready to create a civil war – do you really want that? – by attempting to deport an estimated twelve million illegals and their children, many of whom are legally citizens of the U S, then you can seriously raise the question of no longer paying for the education of illegal immigrant children. But in the midst of potentially great riots that will destroy our cities, there may not be many schools left to educate any kids.
To those who would refuse education to children illegally here: When was the last time you asked your gardener for a green card? Or the guys who put on your new roof? What about the assistant who helped your painter, or the termite inspector, or dozens of other people who do work for you either daily or from time to time? It is one thing to speak theoretically about removing aliens who, it is claimed, are a great financial burden on the country or our schools. It is another to think practically about just who these illegal aliens are.
It is also important to recognize that it is the very policies of the US government, both Democrats and Republicans, who have pushed NAFTA and the WTO which privatized the rail, telecom and other industries as well as driving the peasants off the land have created even greater migration to the US. It is no accident that there are big billionaires in Mexico. These billionaires with the support of US multi-nationals and US politicians have looted the public resources and driven workers out of their jobs, forcing them to come to the United States for work. Building border walls will not stop this migration. We need to abolish NAFTA and support the public ownership of those resources that have been privatized for greater profits of the billionaires. This will help the Mexican working people and the US people who also have paid the cost of NAFTA.
In both countries there is also a push for privatization of education by the same people. It will destroy education for working people and make education a profit-making venture for the corporations and the rich. Is this what we need for our children? I think not.
My position may not satisfy the voter who raised the question, but it is a lot closer to reality than the political ads telecast by Meg Whitman or Steve Poizner.
http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/
http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/platform
Leonard James Martin
For the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
P. O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888
__________________________________________________________
PRESS RELEASE #11
May 20, 2010
By Leonard James Martin
Candidate for the State of California Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
Leonard James Martin Commends Tesla for not Building at Downey Toxic Dump Site
CA State Superintendent for Public Instruction 2010, candidate Leonard James Martin Commended Tesla Motors Inc. for not building their green assembly plant at the Stuart Lichter IRG owned toxic dump site. Leonard James Martin who worked at the site as a member of IATSE Local 44 and was a propmaker has been challenging Stuart Lichter over the failure to properly clean up the site.
“Why is it that Los Angeles County Office of Education employee’s whose offices are surrounding the Downey toxic dump site have been getting sick”? At a recent meeting of Workers Memorial Day in Los Angeles, LACOE employee and SEIU 99 member Margie Quintana reported that many education workers at the site have been sickened by toxic material at the site.
Leonard James Martin has campaigned on the need to clean up school sites throughout the state and make sure that school children and school teachers and staff have a health and safe environment.
Unfortunately the Los Angeles Unified School District has a very poor record of protecting the health and safety of both students and education workers including spending hundreds of millions of public tax dollars building sites on toxic dump sites and also retaliating against employees who speak out on these issues.
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-05-01/news/another-toxic-school/
http://www.laweekly.com/1998-08-06/news/school-board-fires-hamid-arabzadeh/
Candidate Leonard James Martin is calling for an independent investigation of the continuing sickness of LACOE employees who work next to the Downey dump site and also for epidemiological studies on all staff at the site.
The intelligent decision by Tesla not to build their assembly plant at Downey is based on their knowledge that if they had built the plant on the site they themselves would have been liable for healthcare and the health and safety problems at the site. They have made the right decision not to subject their employees to the dangerous toxins and contaminants at the site.
For further information on Leonard James Martin’s campaign for California State Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010 go to the links listed below, thank you.
http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/
http://leonardmartin.us/wordpress/platform
Leonard James Martin
For the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
P.O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888
___________________________________________________________
PRESS RELEASE #10
May 17, 2010
By Leonard James Martin
Candidate for the State of California Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
Birmingham Decision – Part 2
Los Angeles Unified school district has a history of controversial charter school conversions. The Birmingham High fiasco is only one of many.
Let’s not forget what happened seven years ago when El Camino Real High School was on the brink of converting to charter. To clarify, this LAUSD traditional school won the recent National Academic Decathlon, the sixth time since 1998.
Back in 2003, a number of teachers were certain that El Camino could not maintain its academic superiority if it did not go charter. After all, it was underfunded compared to schools receiving Title 1 funds. But something went wrong during the process of obtaining teacher signatures. With no official guidelines to follow, a signature sheet was placed in plain view on the front desk of the main office. Unfortunately, this was similar to process used for other major charter conversions. While our society is careful to protect people from having to share their voting habits in public during elections, we fail to follow the same procedures for decisions that are just as important for students, parents, teachers and staff members at our schools.
Without proper guidelines, signatures can be publicly displayed, subjecting each signer to pressure from opposing forces. Chaos ensues, pitting teachers and administrators against each other. It was also reported that teachers who failed to sign were “called” in one by one to the principal’s office at both El Camino and Granada Hills. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what went on behind those closed doors. It should be no surprise that someone at El Camino finally filed a Hostile Work Environment leading to LAUSD and UTLA also getting involved. The result was reported in the Daily News as follows:
“In April, the Los Angeles Unified School District launched an investigation into Principal Ron Bauer’s handling of El Camino Real’s charter process after complaints surfaced that he intimidated some teachers into signing a petition to support the charter.”
The results of the investigation were never made public, but Bauer announced soon after that he was leaving El Camino for another position. The charter movement died at that moment. The school has since recovered as evidenced by its recent academic successes, proving that going charter was not a necessity to achieve a high level of performance.
The events described above can be directly attributed to our state’s charter law that appears to be lax or non-existent, leaving the door open for a process that is anything but democratic and is wrought with financial irregularities and conflicts of interest. It is no wonder those who have much to gain monetarily from the privatizing of education would insist that the charter process be anything but transparent. The court’s decision to not challenge the voting process at Birmingham is a tragedy for those who support fairness, honesty, and a democratic process. The winners are certainly not the teachers, parents, and students whose voices of opposition were systematically shut down by the charter juggernaut and by the majority of LAUSD Board of Education members openly beholden to outside interests.
In the November 14, 2008 edition of the LA Times, Board Member Galatzan stated the following:
“Charters thrive on their reputation for sound fiscal management, educational excellence and the freedom to innovate. But their good standing will suffer in the eyes of the public if the market is flooded with schools that don’t measure up. It’s time the district gets a good yardstick.”
Sadly, not only is the new yardstick made of rubber, but the proliferation of charters requires a 12 foot steel I-beam to do a proper job of authorizing and oversight. But with the elimination of the LAUSD Charter Committee for apparent budgetary reasons, those responsibilities will most likely be curtailed or thrown by the wayside, leading to more and more charter failures like Green Dot’s Animo Justice and possibly Animo Film and Theatre Arts. This should be proof enough that fiscal oversight by LAUSD’s Charter Office could have and should have identified financial problems at these schools before it was too late. If the Charter Office is not increasing its staff to match the growth of charters in this district, taxpayers will continued to be saddled with paying for the deficit incurred at schools like Animo Justice. How many more charters will fall prey to the same situation, all at taxpayers’ expense?
When schools are authorized in a manner similar to Birmingham and with non-existent oversight, we will continue to see more and more schools torn apart by dissension and mismanagement.
Leonard James Martin
Candidate for the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
P.O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888
___________________________________________________________
PRESS RELEASE #9
May 14, 2010
By Leonard James Martin
Candidate for the State of California Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
BIRMINGHAM DECISION – COURT SIDES WITH THE PRIVATEERS
On May 13, in a Los Angeles superior courtroom, the legal system joined forces with those who would destroy our public schools by turning them over to charter operators. In a quick ruling, the court denied the plea of plaintiffs who challenged the very questionable conversion of Birmingham High, a part of the Los Angeles Unified School District, to charter status. If this judicial decision stands, the democratic ideal of a secret ballot to decide such critical issues as the transfer of a public school to charter status is dead.
The case, brought by Steven Shapiro, echoed the complaints raised during two other high profile high school charter conversions that took place earlier. In all three cases opponents, who wanted the schools to remain part of the LAUSD, complained bitterly that the charter elections were rigged, that those against conversion were intimidated, and that ineligible persons participated in the election. Granada High, Locke High and Birmingham all present a lesson in civics that would shock students in a high school government class.
There was no “election,” at least not in the way most Americans think an election should take place. The entire process is carried out by petition. That means petition circulators can badger teachers, some of whom may sign for fear that if they don’t their refusal will affect their relationship with the administration, which in all three high schools promoted the conversion process.
Most Americans think that workers in private businesses ought to use a secret ballot to determine if a majority want to form a union. Then why should an open petition rather than a secret ballot be used to create a charter school?
At Locke High, even with an open petition endorsed by the principal and with the angry complaints about intimidation, it was doubtful that the required half of the permanent faculty had given their approval. Hardly any of the teachers who signed the Locke petition are still at the school. A large portion of the Birmingham faculty, in opposition to the conversion, wanted to set up their own Institute – still under control of LAUSD – on the campus, but the school board turned them down.
Coincidentally, a week ago one of the prime movers of the Locke conversion – Ben Austin – took his seat on the state board of education. The first serious business he was asked to vote on was a charter conversion in Piru, where over half of the faculty had petitioned for such a school. Austin voted No. Perhaps if it had been Green Dot or one of the other corporate charter companies that are out to grab as many schools as possible his vote would have been different.
He said Piru somehow differed from Locke. It did, for at Piru a clear majority of the faculty wanted to form a charter.
At the courthouse last Thursday the judge indicated he did not want to undo what the LAUSD board had decided a year ago. Never mind the charges of intimidation, the folly of the “election,” or the fact that among those signing the petition were many people who apparently were not eligible to do so. None of that seems to matter. The board had decided, so let it be. We don’t need to get at the truth. It might embarrass the LAUSD board and the district’s administrators.
That’s a sad commentary on both the American judicial and educational systems.
Rest assured that as Superintendent of Public Instruction I will do my utmost to make sure that such shenanigans never again take place when it comes to converting a traditional community school to a charter, which is accountable to no one.
Leonard James Martin
For the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
P.O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888
__________________________________________________________
PRESS RELEASE #8
May 13, 2010
LEONARD J. MARTIN
CANDIDATE FOR SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
WHY I STRONGLY SUPPORT TENURE
Every few year’s self-appointed “educational reformers” place abolition of tenure near the top of their list of how to fix California’s schools. We are once again in an era of faux reform, marked this time by privatization of public education in the form of charter schools and a call for “school choice.” That choice, in fact, offers little or no alternatives to most parents and students.
Equally loud among the demands of reformers is a rising tide of voices demanding the firing of entire faculties because test scores are so low and an insistence that in this time of budget shortfalls seniority should not be a consideration in teacher layoffs. The last item is argued on ground that young, innovative teachers new to the classroom and therefore more desirable – and a lot cheaper when it comes to salaries – should not be let go to save the jobs of experienced, senior faculty members who also happen to be higher paid. To achieve the last two goals it would be necessary to either repeal the tenure law or emasculate it. That’s the real goal of the critics.
Why do I strongly support tenure? Recently, two retired California public college professors wrote an opinion piece published in California dailies. It was controversial, without a doubt. In the papers that printed online comments from readers, one critic not only rejected the reasonable arguments the professors had put forth but insisted that the opinion piece was a good example of why tenure should be abolished. Those critical of an expression of opinion in the daily press by a faculty member whose position they disagreed with would like to fire the teachers. And that’s what happened in the days before adoption of the tenure law.
The critics would muzzle the history teacher who, without tenure, would be afraid to speak out on current issues outside the classroom. The lack of tenure would force teachers to confine literature reading to “safe,” non-controversial classics or pap. Even some of the classics offend the critics and a non-tenured teacher would likely avoid them.
Think that’s an overstatement? Better look at the “ban the books” reformers who exist all over this state and nation. How long would a science teacher last who crossed the line – according to the critics – on evolution, the environment or other controversial subjects? We won’t even mention sex education. Even though the teacher handled the subject with dignity and in accordance with state standards, administrators wanting to keep their own jobs and satisfy powerful forces in the community are likely to remove the teacher who does not have the protection of tenure.
That happened before the law was adopted in the 1930s. Without tenure, teachers were also the victims of cronyism, as principals and board members fired teachers to make room on the staff for friends or relatives, regardless of qualifications or experience. Therefore, to protect the integrity of the classroom, to guarantee that the education students received was first-rate and not watered down to please outspoken critics, and to safeguard the civil rights of teachers, California adopted the tenure law. But teachers have to earn tenure. It isn’t automatic. There might be an argument about whether tenure should be granted after two, three or four years. But there is no argument about the desirability of tenure.
As superintendent, I will fight to preserve tenure. I will be a leading voice in support of tenure as a protection of academic freedom and as a means of creating within the classroom a curriculum that fosters genuine learning.
Leonard James Martin
For the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
P.O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888
_________________________________________________________
Press Release #6
April 26, 2010
By Leonard James Martin
Candidate for the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
WHY DO CHARTERS DOMINATE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION?
Our pro-charter school governor made two appointments this month to the state board of education. Neither appointee deserves to be approved by the state senate. Opposition ought to come from Democrats and Republicans alike. In appointing these two, the governor has catered to a small number of privateers who make great profits in the form of undeserved and disproportionately large salaries. The nominations disregard the interests of the vast majority of our school children.
Both of these nominees are deeply tied to the charter school mania that has swept this state with the support of naive or devious politicians and wealthy philanthropists who use charters to promote their own agenda. If confirmed, these two will join several other charter advocates already on the board. The official website of the state board contains biographies of the current members http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/ms/mm/. Of the nine listed, five clearly represent the interests of charter schools. One of them is the president of the board. At the same time he is CEO of NewSchools Venture Fund, also supporting “educational entrepreneurs,” a fancy name for the charter privateers. Now two more with the same goal – expand charters at the expense of traditional public schools – are about to be added to that list.
If we are to have charters in California, which many of us think is a grave mistake, the charter reps should be in no greater number than the percentage of charter students is to the total k-12 enrollment in the state. Charters enroll about 5% of California’s public schools students, yet they have about 50% of the seats on the state board that determines educational policy and can use its authority to further the interests of the charter privatizers.
Who speaks for the 95% of our students in traditional public schools?
Not the two guys who are about to take their seats on the board. The charters are entitled to a single seat on the board but they don’t have the right to run it. Contact your state senator and urge the denial of the appointments of Ben Austin and Alan Arkatov.
If you want to read about their roles, particularly that of Austin, in promoting charters, go to:
You know where I stand. Why are the other candidates silent?
To know what is wrong with Bush’s No Child Left Behind and Obama’s Race to the Top, all you need to do is read Diane Ravitch’s Book, “The Death and Life of the Great American School System.” She has done all of the research and analysis for us.
Thank you Diane Ravitch.
Leonard James Martin
for the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
P.O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888
__________________________________________________________
April 12, 2010
Press Release #4
By Leonard James Martin
Candidate for the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
“NOW THEY WANT TO SHORTEN THE SCHOOL YEAR”
Critics of traditional public education snidely scoff at time wasted on recess, home room, what passes as “physical education,” the long summer vacation and a school day that’s too short when there’s so much to learn. Those self-appointed reformers applaud charter schools such as one in Oakland that doesn’t waste time on many of these frivolities.
Instead it keeps the kids in school longer each and has them come on Saturdays. Some charters have made summer school compulsory.
But many administrators in traditional public school have joined the chorus that demands more time spent in the classroom. We wonder, though, if that time will be devoted to genuine education or will it be additional time wasted on preparing for standardized tests so that a district’s schools will show some improvement when the next round of test scores is released. An extra hour a day memorizing questions from previous tests and learning all the other tricks designed to raise those scores isn’t what education is supposed to be about.
Faced with massive revenue shortfalls and budgets that are unbalanced, those same administrators and their school boards are suddenly advocates of an entirely different approach. They want to shorten, not increase, the amount of time spent in the classroom.
From Temecula to Santa Rosa, and many big and little districts in between, superintendents, school boards and teachers’ associations are drawing up plans to cut a week or more off either this or the next school year. Los Angeles has a plan to cut four days this year and five in 2010-11. It’s not the result of any new educational theory. No one is paraphrasing Jerry Brown, claiming shorter is better. It’s all about saving money… and jobs.
Despite all the hoopla, California didn’t win big bucks in “The Race to the Top.” Not only did we not win, we – literally – didn’t even finish in the money. To please the president and his education secretary Arne Duncan, the legislature passed two horrendous educational “reform” bills that will have disastrous effects… and Obama gave the state zero dollars. The jobs that had been saved by stimulus money are now unfunded, and the layoff notices went out by the thousands this spring.
In an attempt to forestall layoff and eliminating programs like art, drama and music, teachers, boards and superintendents decided to shorten the school year. The governor, who had called for that last year as a solution to the budget gap, isn’t moaning about how this will hurt test scores. No one is worried that cutting a week off the school year in L.A. might mean that a flock of kids will never know the difference between sit and set, or lay and lie. In an American history class it means the equivalent of omitting everything that happened after World War II. What part of the times tables will elementary kids never learn? Oh, instead of learning the elevens and twelve’s, we’ll stop at ten times ten. Aren’t there some French or Spanish adverbs that we can dispense with? Let’s shorten the periodic table of elements. Some of them are surely unessential.
Yes, instead of finding the money to run our schools so that we can do all that we ought to be doing, cut the budget and shorten the school year. The kids will never know the differences…. will they? But Meg Whitman is right! Under no circumstances show we force commercial property to pay its fair share of taxes or make those who have benefited from society with their higher incomes pay a progressively higher tax on their wealth. If higher taxes of the rich or on prosperous businesses are the only solutions, let’s shorten the school year. Surely all parents and students will cheerfully welcome that extra vacation time.
Leonard J. Martin
for the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
P.O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888
__________________________________________________________
April 06, 2010
Press Release #3
By Leonard James Martin
Candidate for the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
“DEMAND FAIRNESS IN FINANCING PUBLIC SCHOOLS”
With our public schools facing an economic catastrophe unseen in California since the Great Depression, district after district is taking drastic steps to balance their budgets … and the kids will suffer. In some cases home owners will also suffer. The cause is the unfair method of financing public education that has evolved since passage of Prop. 13 in 1978.
Prevented by 13 from asking local voters to raise property taxes, several California districts have resorted to the only local source of revenue left: the parcel tax. As a sop to our public schools and at the same time to protect their wealthy corporate backers, the authors of 13 allowed local school districts to raise additional money if they could get 2/3 of the voters to approve an additional tax on each parcel of property in the district. But with those wealthy corporations in mind, 13 says that each parcel must pay the same tax regardless of the value of the property.
Los Angeles Unified has placed a $100 per parcel assessment on the June ballot as a means of offsetting part of an anticipated deficit running into hundreds of millions. If adopted, the parcel tax will wipe out a significant portion of the deficit. For a financially strapped district that would be good news.
For homeowners. however, the parcel tax stinks! The unfairness of such a tax can be easily demonstrated. Since every parcel pays the same tax, that means that a disproportionate share falls on the property of working people. Rich corporations, holding vast amounts of property valued in the billions, get off with what amounts to a slap on the wrist.
Consider this: a small home in the inner city or Pacoima, worth somewhere in the vicinity of $150,000, if that much, will pay an additional $100 annual tax. At the same time, the owners of those enormous refineries in Wilmington and skyscrapers such as the Library Tower in downtown L.A. …. will also pay only $100 each.
Why? Because Prop 13 won’t allow a parcel tax that takes into consideration the real value of the property. That was included in 13 deliberately to prevent forcing giant businesses to pay their fair share of the cost of educating their future employees.
Parcel taxes are unjust, but at the moment that’s the only way for local districts to raise additional revenue. The ultimate solution is to repeal Prop. 13, which allows those refineries and skyscrapers to escape paying their fair share of the regular property tax.
So what’s the immediate solution? Do what Oregon did in January, raising taxes on the most profitable corporations and placing an additional income tax on the very highest incomes. It would not increase the burden on the overwhelming majority of workers, and it can be done by an act of the legislature, quickly.
If that hasn’t been done by the time I’m elected, I will push for an Oregon law and for repeal of Prop. 13.
Leonard J. Martin
for the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
P.O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888
__________________________________________________________
April 01, 2010
Press Release #2
Leonard J. Martin, Candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction
“REJECT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION NOMINEES”
This week Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nominated two more charter school partisans to serve on the state board of education. One of them, Ben Austin, has for some time been a zealous advocate of charter schools with close ties to the charter corporate giant, Green Dot. The other nominee, Alan Arkatov, sits on the board of a charter organization with sixteen schools in Los Angeles. These nominations will make an already pro-charter state board even more out of balance. Although California’s charter schools contain about 5% of the state’s public school students, a majority of the state board will consist of members directly involved in charter operations. This will facilitate the raid by charter entrepreneurs on the state’s nearly $40 billion education budget.
When disputes arise between charters and our traditional public schools, which educate 95% of the kids in California, the state board, dominated by pro-charter interests, will bow to the wishes of Green Dot and the powerful California Charter School Association. Even without the two new nominees the board has acted against the reasonable proposals of traditional school administrators and granted the charter operators whatever they desire.
Since Ben Austin has a history of close association with the Democratic party and held numerous positions in the Clinton Administration, and has very close ties to the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, who enthusiastically endorsed his nomination, it is likely that the Democrat-controlled state senate will approve the nomination. That would be a terrible mistake. But it was Democrats who pushed through the pro-charter “reform” bills in January. Those bills were adopted despite opposition from those of us who know that the future of California rests with the traditional public schools, not with privateers who seek to get rich and powerful by raiding the state education budget.
Leonard James Martin
Mailing Address;
P. O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, Ca. 91380-2888
__________________________________________________________
Mar. 23, 2010
Press Release #1
By Leonard James Martin
Candidate for the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
“LET KIDS, PARENTS AND TEACHERS RUN ANIMO JUSTICE. CLOSE GREEN DOT!”
This week’s announcement that the corporate giant in the charter school business will close a Los Angeles high school reveals the folly of running public schools like a business. Yet that is exactly what charter advocates, including the leaders of Green Dot, insist is the key to successfully “operating” public schools in Los Angeles, and elsewhere.
Like an employer closing a branch plant to save money, Green Dot decided to close one of its many “subsidiaries” in L.A. That decision was taken without input from those most affected by the closure: students, teachers and parents. Instead, the self-appointed, unelected corporate board at Green Dot made that decision behind closed doors.
How often we see the same ruthless approach in the business world as one large corporation after another shuts its doors, putting great numbers of employees out of work without adequate notice or an opportunity to offer input, all for the sake of the bottom line.
Kids are not a commodity. Green Dot has not learned that but it is true. Billionaire-financed “educational” corporations should not be allowed to interrupt a child’s schooling. When Animo Justice closes at the end of the academic year, kids in grades 9-11 will be set adrift.
Was this part of the “contract” that parents and kids signed when they entered the school?
There is a simple solution. The governing board that granted Green Dot the right to organize this school – the Los Angeles Unified School District – should add Animo Justice to the list of 30 schools that have already been turned over to others to run, primarily to teachers. In this case, give the school to those most involved in the education process at Animo – the kids, their parents and their teachers.
Short of that, the school board should refuse to approve the closing of the school and should force Green Dot to continue operating it, even at a loss. But that would punish the kids more than it would punish Green dot.
Leonard J. Martin
for the State of California, Superintendent of Public Instruction 2010
P.O. Box 802888
Santa Clarita, California 91380-2888