Connie Rice, a long-standing social activist, called the plan that could open 250 schools in L.A. Unified School District to outside operators a silver bullet solution.

Rice is co-director of Advancement Project, a nonprofit dedicated to closing the opportunity gap for low-income residents in Los Angeles. She is known for fighting inequity and working with organizations to promote social change. Rice has collaborated with conservatives on education issues and helped put aggressive reformers on the governing board of Los Angeles public schools. She also supported the LAPD in its struggle to quell Watts gang violence and served as counsel to the Watts gang truce.

Before Advancement Project, Rice co-litigated class- action, civil rights cases and won more than $1.6 billion in policy changes and remedies, while working for the Los Angeles office of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

In an interview with Neon Tommy's Madeleine Scinto, Rice said the L.A. Unified measure does not provide a comprehensive enough answer to the systemic problems facing the district.

The measure gives Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines authority to recommend which schools should be released from L.A. Unified's control; the schools currently on the table include 50 new campuses and about 200 of the district's lowest-performing schools. The L.A. Board of Education expects charter groups and other outside operators to bid against each other for control over the opened schools.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a major advocate of the plan, contends the resolution will help L.A. Unified overcome its long struggle to improve student achievement and test scores. Opponents to the measure, like United Teachers Los Angeles, say the district is selling its schools into an ineffective system.

In the interview Rice explains the difficulties the plan faces and the major problems confronting the L.A. school district.

Neon Tommy: Do you believe the plan will work?

Connie Rice: I guess the theory is if you open [the failing schools] to lots of people to run them it will fix the problem. There will be competition and bidding among different organizations and these organizations will improve the schools. But I think that's an assumption and isn't necessarily going to happen.

When you have a catastrophic problem the change has to be systemic. To create achievement cultures you need a comprehensive solution that looks at things like the home environment, the qualifications of teachers and instructors, and countering youth culture and low expectations. You have to go from soup to nuts. To do that you have to counteract the whole eco-system.

So I give [School Board member Yolie Flores] Aguilar credit for trying to address L.A.'s low-performing schools. But you can't fix a systemic issue with a silver bullet solution.

What does the possibility of opening 250 L.A. schools to outside operators say about the district's ability to educate kids?

In terms of the overall idea, Aguilar is trying to inject some creativity into the system and surmount some of the bureaucracy. The way it is now the system can't come to terms with the chronic failure of its inter-city schools.

That's not to say the whole of the Los Angeles system is a failure. It's not. L.A. does very well with upper middle-class kids. It has pretty strong schools in the advantaged areas and these schools have won different awards like the California Distinguished School Award.

But for poorer schools there is not a culture of achievement. These schools have problems with their entire eco-systems. It includes everything from some of the unsafe environments where the kids live to the teachers not getting enough support. If you have a 25 percent graduation rate, you know there's a real systemic failure. There's a problem with the entire system.

Do you think it was a good or bad idea that L.A. Unified opened itself to
 charter takeovers? Why?

Charter schools are not a bad idea. There are good, bad and fantastic charter schools. Charter schools can break through the cultures of complacency and bureaucracy that stifle creativity. They present a new environment where there's a little more wiggle room.

In the charter system you have good examples and bad examples. And there are some charters that are not any different than any other school in the district.

[The district] needs to take examples of the charter schools that work, the good examples, and model the failing schools after them.

There are some reports that what happens outside of school is equally or
 more important as what happens inside of school. For example, some research
 shows summer learning loss is a huge issue, especially for underprivileged
 students. How will charter school address these issues or be any different? 


I don't know. Again, the approach needs to be comprehensive. It doesn't do any good to educate kids inside the school but not address problems kids face outside the school...violence, drugs, jail. -->

There are some reports that what happens outside of school is equally or
 more important as what happens inside of school. For example, some research
 shows summer learning loss is a huge issue, especially for underprivileged
 students. How will charter school address these issues or be any different? 


I don't know. Again, the approach needs to be comprehensive. It doesn't do any good to educate kids inside the school but not address problems kids face outside the school...violence, drugs, jail. -->

Judith Perez, president of Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, 
 voiced
 some concerns about charter schools creating a two-tier system. She has been quoted as saying, "Charter schools frequently push out students who have
 behavioral issues, frequently do not accept students with special needs, 
 frequently skim off the top performers in their neighborhoods." Do you think
 a
 two-tier system is a real possibility? How would it affect L.A. Unified?


What I think [Perez] means is a three-tier system because there already is a two-tier system. There already is a two-tier system where advantaged kids go to better schools and poorer kids go to worse schools.

If the charters don't have to accept all types of kids then there will be a three-tier system. The poor kid tier will be split into two groups according to ability.

But it's not about a two-tier system right now. It's about schools that work and schools that don't work. The schools in poor communities don't work so it's inadequate.

The problem with the charter proposal is you haven't developed a comprehensive enough solution. It keeps kicking. You have a systemic problem.

What is the solution to the systemic problem? What could L.A. Unified do to try and fix its systemic problem? 


Schools aren't structured to teach. Schools aren't sustained and supported. The whole paradigm of public education needs to be analyzed.