Jump to content

Talk:Los Angeles Unified School District/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

LAUSD Annual Budget $20G?

In the paragraph that cites what percentage of types of students attend the school district no where does it mention White students as being part of the academics there. This has to be impossible. I'm sure there are more White children attending the schools than not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njpaul0129 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph, it says the 2008 budget was $19.986 billion dollars. With 684k enrollment, that comes $28.7k per student. Harvard tuition for comparison is $33.6k. The citation is an invalid URL, and I suspect that the number cited was actually a one-time construction levy. If no one can document this number, can we remove it from the article? Grubbiv (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the budget to $13.645 billion and clarified that this is for the 2008-2009 budget year. The best source for LAUSD budget info is the LAUSD Chief Financial Officer Webpage. I am using the final budget expenditures for 2008-2009 as listed on page I-38 of Superintendent's 2009-2010 Budget. Grubbiv (talk) 07:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


WHO "CORRECTED" the budget for the 2007-2008 year?? PLEASE POST THE FINANCIAL AUDIT of the LAUSD BUDGET for the 2007-2008 YEAR. Instead there are postings of the "adopted budget", the "budget proposal", "estimated budget" none of these are facts and actuals...Grubbiv this looks awefully suspicious, where did $6,000,000,000 disappear to? And even if it was a "construction levy" if it was part of the actual budget then it still affects the numbers. You were accurate initially with the $28.7k per year, per student. And if you are going to post only the budget for the 2008-2009 year then please post the number of students that attended that year. Are you saying that we can't figure out one year later how many students attended LAUSD in the 2008-2009 year? Harvard's tuition in 2007-2008 was $45,620. (RED1)

I thought I would share with you the bottom line numbers I extracted from the CFO budgets by year: LAUSD Budget 2002-2009. They increase from $8.4B in 2002 to $13.6B in 2008, with a big jump from 2006 ($10.2B) to 2007 ($14B) when the school building program kicks in. Although the reports may only have preliminary numbers for the current year, actual numbers are available for previous years. Incidentally, the numbers I was looking for were what LAUSD actually spent or thinks it will spend, and not what it is authorized to spend, a number which is sometimes mentioned and which can be significantly higher.
It seemed more meaningful to compare LAUSD cost-per-student to Harvard tuition ($33,700 in 2009) instead of Harvard tuition and board ($48,900 in 2009) because LAUSD doesn't board its students. Either way, it doesn't appear that LAUSD can afford to send its students to Harvard. All the best. Grubbiv (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Overlap

List of high schools in Los Angeles County, California contains almost (?) all of the regular LAUSD high schools. It's handy to have all of the county schools in one place, on the other hand duplication isn't good. Any suggestions? -Willmcw 23:01, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

LAUSD does not make up all of Los Angeles County, therefore the list isn't exactly the same. WhisperToMe 23:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

If they were exactly the same then there'd be no question. They're partly the same. I guess I'm wondering if there is any point to either omitting the list of high schools from here and point to the list there. Or, vice versa. Any thoughts? -Willmcw 00:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

redirect to nowhere

the link to Gaspar De Portola Middle School redirects to this page, and not to an article about the school. an or stub should probably be written for it.

also, it may not be the only school in that situation, and don't even get me started about the numerous schools that have red links.Tobias087 05:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Boundary changes

See http://www.laschools.org/employee/mpd/boundary-changes/ for 06-07 changes. Please help me update the article :) WhisperToMe 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Los Angeles USD

Based upon the reasons that I mentioned at Template talk:Los Angeles USD, Template:Los Angeles USD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. BlankVerse 20:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

New schools

See http://www.laschools.org/find-a-school#all-projects for new schools. WhisperToMe 01:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Miguel Contreras Learning Center

When Contreras opens (do this now if it is open), please move it from the to be opened category to the list with the zoned schools.

See [1] about Contreras. WhisperToMe 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Split LA school list to new article?

The LA school list is becoming longer... WhisperToMe 04:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there something like over 1,000 schools in the LAUSD? I'd say keep this article as ONLY on the LAUSD itself, and then either create one article that is a List of schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District, or create separate list articles for each type of school. Either way, the lists themselves should be turned into two or three columns so that the lists aren't so long. BlankVerse 04:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there parts of Los Angeles in Las Virgenes Unified School District?

After seeing this map http://ecr.lausd.k12.ca.us/images/ecr_boundary_hi-res.pdf - I wonder if there are parts of LA in the LVUSD? WhisperToMe 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, there are exactly nine precincts of LVUSD in the City of Los Angeles, most notably the portion of the Bell Canyon tract annexed by the City west of the boundaries of Rancho de San Fernando and in Township 1 (Thomas Guide Page 529). See this link. I am going to go ahead and move the City of LA back up in the "all" category with the exception of those tracts. Calwatch 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Student Population Contradiction

The article says that LA Unified has the largest student population and yet implies it is second largest at the same time. 71.166.58.19 02:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"is the largest (in terms of number of students) public school system in California and the second-largest in the United States. " WhisperToMe 02:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph

Does the second paragraph in the introduction seem a bit long and out of place? Wondering if it can be re-worded, shortened, and the information redistributed (ie. the School Police blurb). Lasdlt 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"No Howevers Allowed"

With all due respect to user WhisperToMe, is it really necessary to remove every trace of "however" in this article? Perhaps having more than one instance of it is a bit much, but "however" is a very effective transition when used properly. Keep in mind, a failure to use any when transitions when they are due is just downright poor witting.

Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Weasel words - You know I am right. Maybe in a few cases, "however" is okay - But keep in mind that we are writing an encyclopedia, not an essay. Our main goal is to convey information, not to write an extensively beautiful paper. WhisperToMe 21:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dangerous, Disinterested and Overcrowded

Article published - redundancy deleted--Mig 20:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mig, Wikipedia does not allow Wikipedia:Original research. Please find a press source. If the press publishes your comments, then we may consider acknowledging them. It is okay to link to press sources that discuss any sort of LAUSD failure. If you find newspaper articles and editorials about it, you may mention them (with the author). WhisperToMe 16:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear WhisperToMe -- thanx for your timely response. I will try to get some journalistic comments -- whether mine or independently researched by someone else -- published. Mig 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Dear WhisperToMe -- here's the article I wrote:

Battle-scarred 'sub' in L.A. barrios speaks out

Article published - redundancy deleted --Mig 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted --Mig 20:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

History of LAUSD

On November 16, 2007, the WorldNet Daily posted "Battle-scarred 'sub' in L.A. barrios speaks out" by Migdia Chinea Varela, a screenwriter and former substitute teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Chinea stated that, in many schools she served, the students had no interest in learning, abused the teachers, vandalized property, and joined gangs. Chinea, who was injured on the job, stated that teachers are underpaid and under-appreciated in the district. She described the campuses in LAUSD as "mess, filthy, dilapidated and without supplies." Chinea believes that the district is taking little action against the conditions rampant in various low income schools. [2]

You're right; arguing about whether teachers are underpaid is not really the point. In fact I agree with your opinion. However, I still don't understand how the publishing of this article, which happens to be written by you, is a significant event in the history of the LAUSD. Also, by the way, I am a teacher of ten years, and I don't know a single teacher who thinks that they are "putting their life on the line" when they show up at school.--red shirt guy (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

--Mig 17:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Deleted -- --Mig 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a relevant article on LAUSD Superintendent Brewer: http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/how-superintendent-david-brewer-ran-aground/17943/ --Mig 01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

well, this article has a little background info, and then a long list of schools. that's all great, but how about actual info on the disctrict? statistics, other than just enrollment numbers? would be good...lensovet 02:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Have at it! Err...I assumed you were volunteering??? Akradecki 04:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I would, but I know absolutely nothing about the LAUSD and to be honest have little interest in it :\ lensovet 04:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I landed here too looking for info and the subject sure is taking a beating as a possible NNPOV problem. How about the busing issue, which was fairly huge in the 1970's? Is there anything nice to be said? (LAUSD Honor Band maybe?) Group29 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC) I added the two sections, busing and Los Angeles Unified School District All District High School Honor Band. Group29 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Alberto "Beto" Gutierrez

Dear WhisperToMe: Here's an article about Alberto "Beto" Gutierrez, a social sciences teacher and youth advocate in the San Fernando Valley who is suing the LAUSD over retaliation for teaching both political sides of the war in Iraq and what (to me) appears to be a First Amendment issue. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/08/26/state/n022940D76.DTL&hw=school&sn=007&sc=299. Beto is a San Fernando Valley resident and a product of the LAUSD. He wrote the book "A Sentence with the District" -- http://www.lulu.com/content/1116190 and gave a KPFK 90.7 radio interview on February 7, 2008, in Los Angeles, on the subject of his book and the prevailing educational problems at LAUSD. Beto mentioned to me that his life was threatened at one of his schools. He now teaches at Cal State Northridge. Someone entered his name on Wikipedia as a notable teacher. However, there are no links and he may be deleted. Would it be possible for you or someone else to do the proper links on Beto? --Mig 01:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Mig 14:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Mig 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)--Mig 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear WhisperToMe: "Jose Luis Rodriguez, the principal, says that he spoke to Gutierrez because some parents did not appreciate Gutierrez requiring students to attend off-campus screenings of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Crash."

The above blurb seems odd. It is Gutierrez who wrote a book and he is the teacher about whom articles are written. Somehow I don't believe that Gutierrez would have required his students to watch anything -- and I would imagine that suing LAUSD is too big an endeavor in which to engage over being "spoken to" -- especially since LAUSD is a 14 billion dollar bureaucracy. Mig 04:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)--Mig 04:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Migdiachinea (talk • --04:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Mig

Dear WhisperToMe: Hi. I noticed the edit on Beto Gutierrez and could not find a user page for its contributor. I was wondering if you could take a look at his edit and do your magic. Regards -- Mig (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's try this:

Twenty-First Century

Deleted --Mig 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
  2. As I pointed out (see comment above) when I stopped by this article a year ago, there is a serious Point of view problem with this article. See Wikipedia:NPOV. (I did the step of adding the some information about the enforced bussing and segregation. This was an extremely controversial topic and has changed the structure of the city. However, that subject is treated with the facts only.)
  3. I was wrongly accused on my talk page of deleting content that is still present in its original form. That is a breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette.
  4. Wikipedia does not permit original research as user Whispertome has pointed out already. I did not delete the content in question, although I do not believe I would be wrong in doing so. It is an opinion article. Note that Wikipedia is not a link farm for gathering up articles to support a non-neutral position on the article.
  5. Wikipedia is not a battleground. User X(see note*) who is also a notable personality with a Wikipedia article - (person in Wikipedia Y*) -, has a personal grudge and possible legal proceedings against the subject of the article. That should not be played out in Wikipedia. I highly recommend that a blog be started outside of Wikipedia and publish more information and opinions there. I would expect that with enough interviews and research that it would be picked up by the Times or Daily news.
Note * X who wishes to remain anonymous by removing the link to the user page, which I had placed here. The original text can be found in the history here (Group29 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2008 ). Note that altering others' posts on talk pages is considered Discussion page vandalism. See the Wikipedia:Talk_page article for more on etiquette including signing posts. Quote:"Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
Note that I am not a lawyer, but if there is a case between a wikipedia author and the subject of writing, I would imagine the less written the better. Group29 (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. Group29 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The solution is to see if we can find other articles about LAUSD in the 21st century written by notable people and/or experts. We could use that to show a more comprehensive picture of the district. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Googleable name --Mig 20:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Deleted --Mig 20:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear WhisperToMe (talk) Here's my January 26, 2008 WND interview: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59900

--Mig 17:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC) I've just been informed that 1.3 million teachers were victims of non-fatal attacks in school.--Mig 15:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy deleted --Mig 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/crime03/9.asp 9. Nonfatal teacher victimization at school

This indicator has been updated to include 2001 data.

From 1997 to 2001, teachers were the victims of approximately 1.3 million nonfatal crimes at school, including 817,000 thefts and 473,000 violent crimes.

Students are not the only victims of crime at school. Teachers are also targets of violence and theft in schools. In addition to the personal toll that violence may take on teachers, those who worry about their safety may have difficulty teaching and may leave the profession altogether (Elliott, Hamburg, and Williams 1998). Information on the number of crimes against teachers at school can help show the extent of the problem. Estimates of teacher victimization are drawn from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which obtains information about the occupation of survey respondents. These events are not limited to offenses committed by students; offenses committed by others against teachers at school are also included.

Over the 5-year period from 1997 to 2001, teachers were the victims of approximately 1.3 million nonfatal crimes at school, including 817,000 thefts and 473,000 violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault)(table 9.1). Among the violent crimes against teachers during this 5-year period, there were about 48,000 serious violent crimes (accounting for 10 percent of the violent crimes), including rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. On average, these figures translate into a rate of 21 violent crimes per 1,000 teachers, and 2 serious violent crimes per 1,000 teachers annually.4

During the 5-year period, the annual rate of violent victimization for teachers varied according to their sex and their instructional level (figure 9.1 and table 9.1). Over the 5- year period from 1997 to 2001, male teachers were more likely than female teachers to be victims of violent crimes (39 vs. 16 crimes per 1,000 teachers). Also, senior high school and middle/junior high school teachers were more likely than elementary school teachers to be victims of violent crimes (31 and 33 vs. 12 violent crimes per 1,000 teachers, respectively).

Teachers in urban areas were more vulnerable to violent crime victimization at school than others. For example, annually over the 5-year period, urban teachers were more likely than rural and suburban teachers to be victims of violent crimes (28 vs.13 and 16 crimes, respectively, per 1,000 teachers). Teachers in urban areas were more likely than those in rural areas to experience theft at school (42 and 26 crimes per 1,000 teachers, respectively).--Mig 16:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Group29, for your comments here. I agree with all five points you make above. I have tried to address some of these previously, but much of the discussion has been deleted, and frankly, I got tired of banging my head against the wall. So for what it's worth, I support you completely.--red shirt guy (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear red shirt guy. Please, refer to the government stats listed above. I'm surprised you did not consider that information when many teachers' lives may be at stake. Regards, Mig 18:11, 6 February 2008 --Mig 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Small edit. --Mig 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I think his point is that Wikipedia is a place to objectively state the issues and not to act as a soapbox. I believe that the vandalism and the suing articles are notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend (talk) -- I apologize for any inconvenience. I may be able to explain later on. Thank you for your patience. I'm also trying to sign properly -- regards to you and WhisperToMe -- Mig (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Group29" Mig (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mig (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

LAUSD Hires Child Molester with a history at Markham Middle School in Watts

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-principal13mar13,0,5522349.story

L.A. Times Archives - March 13. 2008

Steven Thomas Rooney, 39, an assistant principal, allegedly molested a student at Markham Middle School.L.A. Unified educator in sex case faced earlier inquiry Steven Thomas Rooney, 39, an assistant principal, allegedly molested a student at Markham Middle School. The Watts assistant principal had been removed from a previous school where he was investigated for allegedly having sex with an underage student and pulling a gun on her stepfather. By Richard Winton, Andrew Blankstein and Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers March 13, 2008


  • It may be a copyright violation to post half of the article without a reason for fair use - It is okay to post bits and pieces for a quote but I think half of it may not fit fair use. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Hmm - I'm not sure what this notice will really do for the Wikipedia article. At Wikipedia we cannot push a platform, so to speak, and in addition this letter has not been published by a third party. If an actual legal case develops (WHEN that happens) - then we can cover it. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and removed most of it. There's such denial, incompetence, corruption and outright abuse at the district. Mig (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Accountability at Last?" There is no accountability at LAUSD because nothing ever gets implemented. And no one will read the "flow chart" Cortines submitted to the district. That diagram will be thumb tacked on a bulletin board like all the other memos. It might get more attention if it's printed on the tp in the rest rooms. The Cortines "decision-matrix flow chart" will be interred along with the "mountain of paper work" that goes to Brewer's desk daily that someone in his staff will have to read and interpret for him -- as he expected with the child molestation memo regarding Markham VP Rooney. This "decision-making flow chart" is a sheet of paper with rectangles which depicts the chain of command at LAUSD. So Cortines is treating LAUSD employees like students who must have information pre-digested in a visual manner because they're too illiterate to read. It's the final dumbing down of the district. They've dumbed down the students for so many years that this is all they know. They're already aware that no one will read a memo at LAUSD.

As Cortines has said, "Seventy-five current district employees have been placed in 'non-school' positions until the matter is wrapped up." What a joke, this thing will never be wrapped up. As Winston Churchill said after the battle of Britain "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end." Cortines would like for all of this to go away -- but since he was just hired by the district, he may be the only one who is not involved in this scandal. It appears that there's an entire cushy desk job mini-district at 333 South Beaudry where they keep LAUSD-approved child molesters and their do-nothing "superintendents" -- they must have a lot of desks in a room that should include the Admiral. Also, please note that all these employees are paid their full salaries while LAUSD claims to be "investigating," but doesn't, in violation of their own policy.

Before this is all over the LAUSD will have to build a 29th floor at Beaudry to warehouse everyone involved in the scandal. This affair is going vertical and could reach the very top of the school district -- including Brewer himself. Brewer is the elephant on the 24th floor at 333 South Beaudry. When will everybody wake up and smell the peanuts on his breath?

Migdia Chinea

Accountability in LAUSD sex cases Deputy superintendent Cortines' move to discipline L.A. Unified officials is just what the district needs. May 8, 2008


What a difference a new senior deputy superintendent makes. The disciplining of two top Los Angeles Unified School District officials who failed to follow up on suspicions that a student had been molested is the sort of accountability the district has long needed and sorely lacked.

District rules -- and basic common sense -- required an internal investigation of Stephen Thomas Rooney after suspicions arose that he had conducted an affair with one of his under-age students at Foshay Learning Center. Instead, after temporary reassignment to a desk job, Rooney was transferred to Markham Middle School in Watts, where he allegedly molested two other girls.

At first, the results of a district investigation into its blunder looked disheartening, as Ramon C. Cortines, the new No. 2 man at L.A. Unified, released a mushy written statement. He placed most of the blame on a now-retired manager -- how convenient! -- and announced a new bureaucratic scheme for avoiding such problems. It was as though the district had gone looking for an explanation of how it disregarded its own policy and instead found what Cortines' statement called a "decision matrix flow chart."

Fortunately, Cortines' actions spoke louder than his written statement. On Tuesday, he removed Carol Truscott, the superintendent of the local mini-district where Rooney had worked, from her job. He also removed a former administrator in her office who was about to become the principal of a new high school. (For the moment, they've been assigned to the central office.) An internal memo shows that Truscott, along with 11 other L.A. Unified managers, was notified of a police investigation into allegations that Rooney "had an unlawful sexual relationship with a minor." As the manager who should have been closest to the situation at Foshay, and who would have had to approve Rooney's reassignment, Truscott bore chief responsibility.

The district's breakdown in the Rooney case kindled a new crisis of confidence in school management. That has been exacerbated by the Foshay student's recent testimony that the school's dean suggested she recant her story and by the arrests of two administrators at another school who were charged with trying to hush up allegations of molestation by a substitute teacher.

Parents demanded a clear signal that the district no longer will tolerate employees who, whether inattentive or devious, fail to place student protection over preservation of the status quo. With his action, Cortines took a step toward restoring trust in L.A. Unified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.88.91 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


LA Times - Tim Rutten:

Let down, again, by LAUSD Protecting an alleged child molester won't get you fired from L.A. Unified, but supporting a charter movement will. May 14, 2008


Every day, the Los Angeles Unified School District fails its tens of thousands of ambitious students, dedicated teachers and hardworking principals in so many ways that it's difficult to imagine how its elephantine bureaucracy could shamble into some new outrage.

Difficult, but not impossible, because the LAUSD runs this city's schools about like the generals run Myanmar.


Put aside for a moment the fact that the district can't figure out how to graduate a decent number of its students, or even how to pay its teachers on a reliable basis. Ignore the Daily News' report this week that the administration, confronted with what may be half a billion dollars in budget cuts, nonetheless is spending $173 million on consultants, many of them connected to various bureaucratic functions -- like making the computers in the superintendent's office work.

Consider, instead, how the LAUSD's highest officials have chosen to deal with what would seem to be the fairly straightforward problem of child molestation. As The Times' Richard Winton and Howard Blume reported Tuesday, Supt. David L. Brewer and Senior Deputy Supt. Ramon C. Cortines reinstated a pair of South Gate high school administrators who had failed to report a student's allegation of sexual abuse by a substitute teacher. County prosecutors, who criminally charged the pair, are outraged.

It's as if the LAUSD never learns. Earlier this year, remember, the district pulled former assistant principal Steve Rooney out of the Foshay Learning Center in South L.A. after the police informed it that he was suspected of having sex with a student. After a brief stint at a non-school job, Rooney was assigned to a middle school in Watts, where he allegedly molested two more students.

Brewer and Cortines feel the two South Gate administrators, who face criminal charges for failing to report the student's allegation, have suffered enough. After all, they were suspended for three days without pay and had a reprimand placed in their personnel files. Cortines -- who recently was installed at the LAUSD to prop up the foundering Brewer -- told The Times, "I want them to use their experience to share with others so we don't have this situation happening again."

Cortines' explanation has an appropriately pedagogic air -- until you stop and think about it. At the very least, the district should have kept South East High principal Jesus Angulo and assistant principal Maria Sotomayor on administrative leave until the criminal charges are resolved, though the senior deputy said their jobs are safe even if they're convicted. That makes his assertion that the returning administrators will somehow become object lessons about the importance of following state laws even more laughable.

If the pair had been sent back with the words "criminal incompetent" branded on their foreheads, he might have a point. Somehow, "Gee folks, don't forget to report child molesters -- or you'll get a harsh note in your permanent record," doesn't seem like much of a deterrent.

Of course, when the district's turf is at risk, its actions are swift and harsh. As The Times reported in another article Tuesday, the district last spring quickly removed Frank Wells, the principal at troubled Locke High School. Was he replaced because of the school's abysmal academic performance? Or because the campus is seething with gang activity and violent ethnic tensions between African American and Latino students?

Naw. Wells was sacked after openly supporting efforts to convert Locke into a charter school.

Maybe it's too much to demand that our schools be entirely insulated from the social ills of the communities around them. Still, it doesn't seem too much to ask that children be physically safe while they're on campus. And while it's probably not feasible to keep every swaggering little gangster or bullying race baiter off the school grounds, it certainly seems reasonable to expect that students will be protected from their teachers' criminal impulses. At a bare minimum, every allegation of faculty or staff misconduct should be treated with all the urgency that the law, decency and a simple sense of adult responsibility demand of anyone entrusted with the welfare of children.

Clueless and smug, neither Brewer nor Cortines seems to understand this. Instead, they've chosen to address a genuine human tragedy -- an adult's fundamental betrayal of a child -- in the language of callous bureaucracy, a dialect in which euphemism piles on evasion and indifference compounds mendacity until an edifice of wispy gray banality arises to shield the unforgivable from critical view.

One of the LAUSD's high-priced consultants was paid to give "media interview and presentation training to the superintendent, members of senior staff and cabinet." Was there a special session for Brewer and Cortines titled, "Defending the Indefensible"?--216.175.109.159 (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is "Filipino origin" a separate category?

Why is "Filipino origin" a separate category? The last time I checked, Filipinos were Asian. Why aren't they in the "Asian" category?

The Universe Is Cool (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool

Historic schools

Here: "Historic Schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District" lists the historic schools. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Also http://www.laschools.org/employee/mpd/boundary-changes/boundary-change-list lists attendance boundary changes. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Prosecuting faculty

Gerardw, please stop undoing people's edits on your whim and without giving a reason. My edit here is verifiable, as can be seen by the LA Times article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangurban1 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece, not a news article. The issue is not verifiability, but rather notability. Please see WP:undue. Gerardw (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your explanation. The LA Times is, nevertheless, a credible source. I thank you for not reverting again, and I invite you to make the section better by adding to it and editing it. Openness and collaboration! Regards Pangurban1 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Gerardw, you have once again reverted and undone work that I spent time doing. This is the second time that I ask you to stop reverting my work. I have tried engaging you through this page, but you seem to insist on reverting my materials without due discussion. If you continue to do so, I will report you to wikimedia. If you have quality editing of your own, go ahead and edit, but stop reverting my work. Regards Pangurban1 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please review the policies at WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and probably WP:RS. If you feel compelled to report me the place to go is WP:ANI. While we certainly welcome a new editor to WP, pushing a particular point of view is not what WP is about. In the meantime, I've requested input from other editors. See below. Gerardw (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
And WP:TPG, too. Gerardw (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

School food policies

It seems strange that there is no mention on this article, no matter how brief, of the TV programme Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, and the controversy surrounding the School District's refusal to allow filming in their schools. A Google search for "Jamie Oliver" plus "Los Angeles" plus "Schools" produces over 6 million hits, many of which are news reports highlighting the controversy. In addition to the United States, the programme is being televised in the United Kingdom, Italy and Greece, and has received a fair bit of reporting in Australia, suggesting that this is probably the only thing many people abroad will know about the School District. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and add mention. I suggest under a "Popular Culture" heading since that is discussed as that much more then the actual food items. Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree someone should add a section on this (though I suggest a new "controversy" heading may be more appropriate?), since I also came here looking for information on the Jamie Oliver conflict. I would add it myself but I'm still a newbie at Wikipedia editing. C 1 (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Teacher Librarian questioning

Whether the text under "Questioning of Teacher Librarians" should read: In May 2011, in an attempt to balance its budget, LAUSD began scrutinizing the practice of the district's teacher-librarians. Teacher-librarians were put on trial, having to demonstrate they had taught within the past five years in order to be classified as teachers and avoid layoff. Teacher-librarians are credentialed teachers and credentialed librarians, and they countered LAUSD's argument, asserting that they teach students every day on how to use the Internet efficiently, effectively, and ethically; conduct independent study and research; and nurture a love for reading and literacy.

or

In May 2011, attorneys for LAUSD began scrutinizing the practice of their own teacher librarians in an attempt to balance their budget. Librarians who could demonstrate they had taught within the past five years could avoid layoff by being classified as teachers Gerardw (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources are credible and verifiable. At the moment, that is all the media information that exists. As more appears, more can be added. Once again, you are engaging in edit-warring, so do not revert my work, and edit if you have your own positive additions. Pangurban1 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's very vague. The sources are from a biased point of view - see WP:NPOV.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times is not a biased source, and at the moment that is all the information we have. As for "vague," what is your definition? Explain how you find the information in these sources to be vague. I would thank you not to revert other people's hard work. Pangurban1 (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
But your page in the Times is a biased opinion article. "Teacher-librarians are credentialed teachers" - that statement can be interpreted to mean many things.Also is "...use the Internet efficiently, effectively, and ethically." This is very biased. Concerning reverts we do it all the time to each other.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Los Angeles Times is a reliable, credible source, and Hector Tobar is a regular reporter for the paper. As for "...use the Internet efficiently, effectively, and ethically," I don't see any bias in this statement. Furthermore, even if you claim that it is biased, the entry was written to show that this is what the librarians claim, not that it's a fact of life. If this is what the librarinas claim, then the American Library Association was a proper citation for the claim. 207.233.79.82 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I do see bias. These statements support the Teacher Librarians' point of view on this - it is undue weight to something that is only as notable as the amount of sentences describing it now. The American Library Association is a biased source. But the biggest problem here is that these statements are very vague and their tone isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. These sentences sound like PR junk.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The latter. I would suggest perhaps adding in the classroom ("...could demonstrate that they had taught in the classroom...) for clarity, assuming that is the correct meaning. Neither passage is terrible, but the former is bit POVy . When you can read a passage and clearly discern the editors's opinion on the issue, that is a bad sign. Herostratus (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
If I read the (limited) reports correctly, they didn't have to be in the classroom to be functioning as teachers -- they had to show the had functioned as teachers while working in the library. Gerardw (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the comments. For the comment from Jasper Deng that "Concerning reverts we do it all the time to each other," this is disheartening. I'm disabled and it takes me a long time to type these. It is crass to just revert people's work instead of trying to make it better by editing it, and then claim that it's something "we" do all the time. For the reports, I believe you have not read them correctly. The claim is that the librarians have had to prove that they taught a course in a traditional classroom setting, which means taking roll, giving grades, etc. The librarians' claim has been that they teach all the time, though not in a traditional setting, and that taking roll and assigning grades is separate from teaching and learning. I have tried to put this as neutrally as possible in the subtopic. I am going to type in the materials once again. As always, if you can make it better, please do so, but simply deleting my hard work because you claim it's vague is not the right thing to do. The vagueness of something is your own personal opinion, and it is not supported by any facts that you have stated here. Thank you. Pangurban1 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
As a privately owned enterprise, Wikipedia may set whatever rules it wishes to. Editing contributions which don't follow the community accepted guidelines is exactly the right thing to do. We've tried to indicate some of the relevant policies by providing links. Whether you follow them or not is up to you. Below the save button is the statement: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Gerardw (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly! I have been asking everyone to edit to make it better. The statement says nothing about if want your writing not to be deleted at will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangurban1 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Removing material is considered a form of editing. See WP:UNSOURCED for more discussion on that. Gerardw (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia etiquette says to avoid reverts whenever possible, and to give good reason for your edits. I have not seen good reason given here. The reasons seem to come out of personal bias. To say something is vague and should be deleted is meaningless. Define what you mean by vague. Explain how this "vagueness" is a truth and not your own personal opinion. The information I had added was cited, but Jasper Deng deleted it. As I said before, I had written is as the librarians' point of view, for which the American Libraries Association was a legitimate citation. You are engaging in edit-warring rather than trying to resolve this situation through dialog, because I see that you deleted my work once again. If you need a citation, then use the ALA citation that I had placed a few edits back. That was on open letter in which the librarians made the exact claim that I had written they were claiming. Thank you Pangurban1 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
You can't claim anything better. Vague=not precise, able to be interpreted in different ways. You are adding these sentences in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Please please please read the policies we link.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
You have given a dictionary definition of vague, but have failed to explain what you find vague. The bias you see is individual to you, it's in your eyes, not in the writing. The writing merely informs the reader of the position each side is taking. I suggest you look through the revisions and reevaluate your thought. There is no consensus here on your side. You have one person who has sided with you, and I have one who has sided with me, and there seems to be someone right in the middle. If this is about being stubborn, as I've seen in your comments on my page, then fine, be stubborn. But please don't mistake your stubbornness with facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pangurban1 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Your sentences are vague. "efficient" can mean many things, for instance. "Teacher-librarians" is a term not defined in the article and "credentialed" may mean several things. Besides, you still do not show any understanding of WP:UNDUE - talking a lot about this issue in this article would be pretty off-topic to me.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Gotta disagree with you one this. Any word in the language can have different meanings, so not sure how you justify singling out words like credentialed or efficient. There's a link to teacher-librarians, and the wikipedia entry itself says that they're certified teachers with training in librarianship. So what's the big deal? Like she says above, it sounds like you're being stubborn. Sounds like all of you are being stubborn. 207.233.76.9 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the sentences violate WP:UNDUE and "efficiently" and "effectively" are both very vague terms. All sentences that comply with our policies show no vagueness whatsoever - but the sentences Pangurban1 are trying to insert fail to meet our policies because of those vague words that make the whole sentences vague.Jasper Deng (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read your link and your argument is incorrect. Neither of the words are vague (your use of the word "vague" is itself vague), and the sentence did not give anything undue weight. The sentence said that the librarians contend that they teach the effective, efficient, and ethical use of information. It is what they contend, and there was a citation to a source where the express this point of view. If you haven't read carefully, then go back and read it again. Thank you Pangurban1 (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It is undue weight - this point of view does not especially deserve such attention in this article.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Look, just because you insist that something is, doesn't make it so (and it doesn't make your argument any more true if you bold certain words). All the statement says is that teacher-librarians are credentialed (a term that the state uses) to be teachers and have a master's degree in librarianship, and that they contend that they teach information literacy every day. This is not a biased argument. It is simply giving the reader information of what a teacher librarian does. Please stop arguing until you have thought about the point you're trying to make regarding undue weight.Pangurban1 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And do you really feel this is significant concerning this article's subject? The article isn't about teacher-librarians.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Just glancing at it, honestly I'm not even really sure as to how significant it is in relation to the overall subject. I favor the shorter version of the discussed material, in any case. Dayewalker (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur. As an un-involved editor, the shorter less POV statement should be used.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Language resources

Russian:

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Maps

LAUSD district maps

Trustee

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

missing schools?

In looking at some of the "Los Angeles foo" articles, I discovered Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies, which is apparently an LAUSD school, but isn't in the list of schools. Does anyone know where the list in this article originally came from? BlankVerse ∅ 13:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I will create a new category, "6-12" schools, and add the school there. Yes, LACES is definately an LAUSD school. WhisperToMe 16:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There are alot more schools in LAUSD than are listed in that article. There are too many missing in the list, including the ones I have gone to. Ampc 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We should be able to find a comprehensive list on the LAUSD site, and if we can, we should just link to it. I don't know if we need to even list here every elementary school and special program. So much school info strains sourcing policy already. Due to maintenance issues I think we should avoid encouraging articles about small schools. I do not want to have to watch list 50 or 300 more school articles. I think we should list all of the high schools, but below that we should be more selective - "notable primary and middle education". -Will Beback 08:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Sad to say, but it's nearly impossible to find a comprehensive list of all schools. I worked for the district for several years, and one of my tasks was to create a service technician routing program to allow managers to find the closest technician when a school had a maintenance emergency. Even internally, no one could give me an accurate list of all the sites. Compounding the issue is that many physical properties house more than one individually managed school. The RFK Community Schools site on the old Ambassador Hotel property houses 10 independently run schools: 4 high schools, 3 middle, 3 elementary. On top of this, many of these shared site schools appear and disappear every year, largely due to new charter schools forming and old charter schools going bankrupt or consolidating (that's a subject for a different rant). At last count, the LAUSD Facilities Services Division had over 1100 individually funded K-12 educational entities on record. I'm sure by next September the number will have changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.152.221 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Notable alumni

A list has begun on notable alumni of the LAUSD. Because of the size (and potential for unsourced content), I recommend these alumni be listed in the individual schools rather than the school district. Bahooka (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm fine with that. Although I note that at least at the Wikipedia level, some may only be listed as being in the district. Seems logical, but for that, and there are some analogous situations in cities (though sometimes the entire list is kept in alpha order, and each sub-identifier is listed after the description of the person, as in List of people from Connecticut). I don't care, either way.

Actually, re-reading your question, I'm not sure if I missed your point. In the case of Farmar, for example, the school in question redirects to this page -- if that is what you are getting at.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you got my point. In the case you noted, the school itself is not notable (like most middle and elementary schools). That doesn't mean we need a list of notable people that attended elementary school in the LAUSD. I think that sourced information is okay in the person's article, but it does not add anything to the understanding of the school district itself. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Bahooka (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it has all the same pluses and minuses that attend lists on wikipedia. It covers a large number of people potentially, but so does "notable people from state x" and "notable people from country y". Which are lists we have. So the size isn't a stopper. And as to the article itself having a notable people list -- it already had one -- faculty. If the issue is, "does this add understanding to the school district" -- well, it adds it as much as any such lists add such understanding of schools and the like ... and as much as the faculty list adds understanding. All of the people in the list now, btw, either went to a school that was a redirect to this article (so they can't be listed there, as Farmar), or in their article have specific mention that they attended school in this district.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There are just too many in the school district to list here. They should be noteworthy ones. It should be shown on separate list. People should to famous, such as Jack Kemp, from Fairfax High. Ucla90024 (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
As a standalone list I would have no problem. Someone is bound to copy and paste from the alumni section of every school in the school district, so I would just start with that list rather than add it to this article. Also, most of the alumni listed here initially did not have a reference here nor on their own article. There needs to be a reference in at least one of them. I'm looking at WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE for guidance on this topic. Bahooka (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Impressive.Epeefleche (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

LAUSD high school attendance zone shapes - February 2009

http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/FLDR_LAUSD_NEWS/FLDR_ANNOUNCEMENTS_SMS/LAUSD%20STRATEGIC%20PLAN.PDF / http://www.webcitation.org/6OMdpLDmq

This is a helpful document. It shows the overall shapes of LAUSD high school attendance zones. The first map is page 17/50.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

New story on LAUSD policies

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-English student handbooks

The purpose of listing these documents is to make it easier to translate material from English to: Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Armenian (current), Russian, Persian, Vietnamese, and/or Polish (previous)

Spanish:

Armenian:

Chinese:

Korean:

Persian (listed as "Farsi"):

Russian:

Polish (!!!!):

Original English versions of the handbooks:

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

All of L.A.?

Is it correct that all of L.A. city is serves by the LAUSD? If so, then the List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles will save some duplicate work. Cheers, -Willmcw

As far as I know, all of LA City is served by LAUSD. --Lan56 23:32, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Other non-English documents

Listing of some documents: http://notebook.lausd.net/pls/ptl/docs/PAGE/CA_LAUSD/FLDR_ORGANIZATIONS/STUDENT_HEALTH_HUMAN_SERVICES/APPENDIX%20LIST_1.PDF - http://www.webcitation.org/6aGgI3Ft7

Spanish:

Armenian:

Chinese:

Korean:

Persian (listed as "Farsi"):

Russian:

Vietnamese:

Original English documents:

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The December 15 2015 shutdown

The entire district was shut down on this date due to an emailed threat. New York authorities quickly judged to be a hoax by a prankster based on factors in the text (such as spelling Allah with a lower case "a") when they and other school districts in the country received similar threats from the same IP. The coverage in this article might include how many times in history the entire school district been shut down because of a threat of a bombing or shooting, the timeliness of the decision relative to the time the threat was received, and what the financial and personal costs of the shutdown were. This seems a rare enough and significant enough event that it should be mentioned in this article. Edison (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for "2015 Los Angeles Unified School District closure"

I think I found a replacement for the dead link in the history section (#16 in the references) [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE19:89A0:9CCE:EAAE:F714:3102 (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Los Angeles Unified School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles Unified School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles Unified School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for //www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/history/schoollist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles Unified School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Los Angeles Unified School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Los Angeles Unified School District. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

21st century subheading uses unreliable source

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am flagging the heading "21st Century" due to it's inclusion of an article ("Battle-scarred "sub" in L.A. barrios speaks out") by World Net Daily, an notoriously far-right website with numerous references to it's false reporting and spreading of conspiracy theories on it's own Wikipedia page WorldNetDaily [1] . As such I do not believe that it's inclusion due to the unreliability of the site that it came from and am recommending it's replacement by a more reliable source.


Cheers.—gsykesvoyage (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph. We would need better sourcing for these claims. –dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Chinea, Migdia (12/04/2018). [http://www.wnd.com/2007/11/44575/ "Battle-scarred 'sub' in L.A. barrios speaks out Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2007/11/44575/#zCSsBwwql3HtPe60.99"]. World Net Daily. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

/History/ Adding new section on labor relations

As a strike looms between the LAUSD and UTLA union, I saw that the LAUSD website does not contain any mention of the several contentious historical teacher strikes. Hundreds of newspaper articles and other resources discuss these strikes. I see this segment as perhaps a start on a larger page on teacher labor relations, or even an article on the history of teacher strikes in California. There are many other potential cross-links and additional references. Frankly, this whole page could use a bit of an upgrade.

I can further see a whole section on the impact of charter schools -- I did not realize that there are more charter schools in Los Angeles than any other school district in the country.

There is also possibly the need for a section on board member Rod Rodriguez guilty-plea for election fraud.

I also fixed the reference to Beutner as the "interim".

All comments are welcome, especially clean-up of my citation formats.

Saltwolf (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

2019 teachers strike in Los Angeles

There is nothing in the article about huge strike - [3] , [4]. Regards. 2601:647:4200:D900:1DD9:8ADA:D6A2:83C4 (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I added a mention about it at the end of the labor part of the history section, but I agree there should be more coverage about it both here and in this article. Perhaps even in a stand-alone article, but I'll wait to see what others think about that in the context of WP:EVENT. ECTran71 (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Updated Facts (enrollment, staff, etc.)

The current wikipedia page sites LAUSD's Fingertip Facts from 2016-17.

The 2019-20 facts are here: https://achieve.lausd.net/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=52741&dataid=80515&FileName=Fingertip%20Facts2019-20_English.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.120.92.229 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 teachers strike/2020 coronavirus closures

I feel like there should be a section about the 2019 teachers strike. Since the strike has its own article [[5]], the section wouldn't have to be too detailed, as we can link readers to the article. Also, maybe something about the closures due to the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. Maybe not a whole section, but I feel like it should be mentioned at least. Thx FlappyBird73 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@FlappyBird73: I also found in English and in Spanish an article about LAUSD ops in fall 2020 related to COVID WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

History

Parts of the article are difficult to understand...

Annexation left the Topanga School District and the Las Virgenes Union School District (then renamed to the West County Union High School District) as separate remnants of the high school district. The high school district changed its name to the West County Union High School District. LAUSD annexed the Topanga district on July 1, 1962. Since the Las Virgenes Union School District had the same boundary as the remaining West County Union High School District, on July 1, 1962 West County ceased to exist.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Los Angeles City School District". Archived from the original on February 7, 1998. Retrieved September 23, 2008.
  • Because a high school district seems to have been required to cover two or more elementary school districts: consolidation would be forced if a high school district had only one elementary school district in its borders WhisperToMe (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Los_Angeles_Unified_School_District/Archive_1&oldid=1150416454"