Special Education in Los Angeles is in Crisis
The LAUSD SpEd Committee has missed opportunities to provide parent input into how services are delivered. Will this year be any different?
– Parent/Teacher speaking at SpEd Committee meeting
On Wednesday, September 11th the LAUSD Special Education Committee held its first meeting of the new school year. Scott M. Schmerelson returns this year as the Committee’s Chairperson, joined by LAUSD Board Members Dr. George McKenna and Dr. Rocio Rivas. While the District has added a member to the Committee, parents have much less representation; last year five committee members were parents and this year only two are.
Another change from last year is the time allotted for public comment. Instead of a maximum of 15 speakers being allowed to speak for three minutes, those addressing the Committee only have two minutes to convey their concerns. This time is scheduled at the end of the meeting leaving the public out of the discussion about the items on the agenda.
These were the comments that my wife, Nicole Petersen, delivered during public comment on my behalf:
I am delivering this message on behalf of my husband, Carl Petersen, who formerly served on this committee and the Community Advisory Committee (CAC).
Special Education in Los Angeles is in crisis:
- Families are feeling that the IEP process is becoming increasingly adversarial.
- The ability to choose specialized day classes and Special Education Centers is being removed as a family’s choice.
- Sensitive medical information and family history for students with IEPs were released in the LAUSD computer systems hack. The Superintendent lied about the extent of this event leaving families more vulnerable to the effects of this hack, effectively victimizing them twice.
- District bureaucrats have ignored the SELPA and the bylaws of the CAC, selecting the CAC’s members without input from the committee.
- The main purpose of the CAC is to guide the District in writing the SELPA. In last year’s triennial update of the document no meaningful input was allowed, nor was there a real opportunity to discuss the final draft.
- In protest of the lack of input from the CAC, its outgoing chairperson refused to sign the SELPA.
Two years ago I applied for a seat on this committee hoping to help guide meaningful change in the LAUSD. Instead, I sat in the seats you are sitting in now listening to District bureaucrats make presentations about how Special Education services are delivered to our children. Very often they were the same presentations that had also been delivered to the CAC. While we were allowed to ask questions, we did not affect policy.
What was missing from the meetings I attended were presentations from parents, teachers, or students telling the District what was needed from them. How much more value would have been squeezed out of this meeting if a mother got to tell her story of fighting for access to an Aut-Core class with proven results? Or from a father who knows his child would benefit from attending a Special Education Center but has been told during an IEP that this program is not being made available to them?
The LAUSD needs to do a better job at community engagement. This Committee could provide a blueprint for accomplishing this.
During my tenure on the Special Education Committee, I was unsuccessful in pushing Scott Schmerelson to add a discussion of my proposed “Improving Special Education Within the LAUSD” resolution to an agenda. I wrote this proposal as a starting point to improve how services are delivered to the District’s most vulnerable students. Having a committee of experts in the field and those affected by the District’s policy review this proposal and recommend changes would have strengthened the proposed resolution. Unfortunately, Schmerelson caved into pressure from the Superintendent’s office to shut down the discussion.
As a self-proclaimed advocate for students with disabilities, Schmerelson must show courage and have the difficult discussions that my proposed resolution brings forward. To do otherwise facilitates a status quo unacceptable to families like mine.
You can continue to pressure Schmerelson and the rest of the LAUSD Board by signing this petition demanding action.
_____
Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for public education, particularly for students with special education needs, who serves as the Education Chair for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council. As a Green Party candidate in LAUSD’s District 2 School Board race, he was endorsed by Network for Public Education (NPE) Action. Dr. Diane Ravitch has called him “a valiant fighter for public schools in Los Angeles.” For links to his blogs, please visit www.ChangeTheLAUSD.com. Opinions are his own.
About the Creator
Carl J. Petersen
Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for students with SpEd needs and public education. As a Green Party candidate in LAUSD’s District 2 School Board race, he was endorsed by Network for Public Education (NPE) Action. Opinions are his own.
Keep reading
More stories from Carl J. Petersen and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Le Pen Hopeful Appeal Will Allow Her to Run for French President
Marine Le Pen, one of France’s most polarizing political figures, is once again at the center of national attention as she places her hopes on an appeal that could determine her political future. The long-time leader of France’s far-right movement believes that a successful legal challenge may clear the path for her to run in the next French presidential election, a race she has contested multiple times but never won. The appeal comes at a critical moment not only for Le Pen personally, but also for the broader direction of French politics, which has been increasingly shaped by debates over immigration, national identity, economic insecurity, and relations with the European Union. The Legal Hurdle Facing Le Pen Le Pen’s presidential ambitions were thrown into uncertainty after a court ruling linked to allegations involving the misuse of European Parliament funds. Prosecutors have argued that party funds were improperly used to pay staff who were allegedly working for her political movement in France rather than for the European Parliament. If upheld, the ruling could result in penalties that would bar her from holding public office for a period of time—effectively ending her chances of contesting the presidency. Le Pen has strongly denied wrongdoing, describing the case as politically motivated and designed to sideline her ahead of a high-stakes election. Her appeal, now moving through the judicial system, is seen by supporters as a final opportunity to keep her presidential bid alive. A Familiar Face in French Politics Marine Le Pen is no stranger to the presidential race. She reached the second round in both the 2017 and 2022 elections, losing each time to Emmanuel Macron. Despite those defeats, her share of the vote has steadily increased, signaling growing support for her nationalist platform. Over the years, Le Pen has worked to soften the image of her party—rebranded from the National Front to the National Rally—seeking to distance it from its extremist roots while broadening its appeal to working-class voters, young people, and those disillusioned with mainstream parties. Her political messaging now focuses heavily on cost-of-living pressures, opposition to immigration, criticism of globalization, and skepticism toward the European Union. Why the Appeal Matters Beyond Le Pen The outcome of Le Pen’s appeal carries implications far beyond one individual. If she is allowed to run, the next presidential election could once again become a referendum on France’s political divide between liberal centrism and nationalist populism. Polls consistently show Le Pen as one of the most popular opposition figures in the country. Her exclusion from the race could reshape the political landscape, leaving a vacuum on the far right and potentially benefiting other populist or conservative contenders. Critics argue that barring her would undermine democratic choice, while supporters of the ruling insist that no politician should be above the law. The case has reignited debates about judicial independence, political accountability, and the fine line between justice and political interference. Supporters Cry Foul, Opponents Demand Accountability Le Pen’s supporters have rallied behind her, framing the legal battle as an attempt by the political establishment to silence opposition voices. They argue that similar cases involving mainstream politicians have not resulted in such severe consequences. On the other hand, her opponents say the case underscores the importance of transparency and ethical standards in public office. They insist that the rule of law must apply equally to all, regardless of popularity or political power. The sharply divided reactions reflect France’s broader political polarization, which has intensified amid economic challenges, social unrest, and shifting global alliances. The Stakes for France’s Future If Le Pen’s appeal succeeds and she enters the presidential race, France could face one of its most consequential elections in decades. Issues such as immigration policy, relations with NATO, support for Ukraine, and France’s role in the European Union would likely dominate the campaign. Le Pen has previously called for stricter border controls, reduced EU influence over national policy, and a more inward-looking economic strategy. While she has softened some positions in recent years, critics remain concerned about how her leadership could reshape France’s democratic institutions and international standing. What Happens Next? The timing of the court’s decision will be crucial. A favorable ruling would allow Le Pen to begin campaigning in earnest, while an unfavorable outcome could force her party to quickly identify an alternative candidate. Regardless of the outcome, the case has already energized her base and ensured that she remains a central figure in public debate. Whether she appears on the ballot or not, Marine Le Pen’s influence over French politics is unlikely to fade anytime soon. Conclusion Marine Le Pen’s hope that an appeal will allow her to run for French president represents a defining moment for both her career and the French political system. At stake are not only her personal ambitions but also broader questions about democracy, justice, and the future direction of France. As the legal process unfolds, the nation—and much of Europe—will be watching closely. The decision could shape the next chapter of French politics and determine whether one of its most controversial figures gets another shot at the country’s highest office.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 4 days ago in The Swamp
Wild Card Weekend Recap: What Happens Now?
I think I figured out why I love Wild Card Weekend so much. It's because it's the first playoff anything of the calendar year. The NFL season starts in the fall, and once upon a time, the champion was crowned either on or slightly before New Year's. The evolution of the NFL schedule has resulted in the playoffs starting just into the New Year, and currently, the final week of the season falls on the first weekend of the New Year, with Wild Card Weekend coming a week after that. So yes, chronologically, the NFL's Wild Card Weekend serves as the first playoff anything of the calendar year.
By Clyde E. Dawkins4 days ago in Unbalanced
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.