OMINOUS SAENZ FOR LAUSD.

Byline: DOUG LASKEN

Local View

MOST Angelenos know about Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's plan to take over the Los Angeles Unified School District, but almost no one knows the name of Thomas Saenz, chief counsel to the mayor and the brains behind AB 1381, the twice struck-down legislation enabling the takeover.

So who is Thomas Saenz, and what do he and the mayor intend for the LAUSD?

There has been little public information on either question, and Saenz never answered repeated requests for interviews for this article. But it's instructive to delve into his past for clues to his and the mayor's intentions.

Saenz first came to public attention in 1998, when he joined in a legal brief requesting an injunction against a certain newly enabled educational practice. See if you can guess what that practice was from the language in the brief:

"(It) will wreak unimaginable harm on 1.4 million (students) .. who will suffer long-term, irremediable educational injury because of (its) extreme, shortsighted prescriptions.... Their life prospects will be shattered as a result ... This measure demonstrably violates the Constitution of the United States."

Did you guess that the measure in question would allow child molesters to be teachers, or perhaps permit a designated faculty marijuana smoking lounge?

If so, you guessed wrong. The brief was in fact warning about the grave dangers of teaching the English language to non-English-speaking children. The legal brief was an appeal on behalf of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund for an injunction against Proposition 227, passed overwhelmingly in California in 1997, which put an end to bilingual education in the state and mandated English immersion for non-English speaking children.

In the LAUSD, bilingual education meant the exclusive use of a student's native language, in most cases Spanish, for all academic instruction. Any teaching of English, or in English, was strictly forbidden. All textbooks, whether social studies, science, or math, had to be in Spanish, and all oral instruction had to be delivered in Spanish. One 30-minute period per day was allowed for "English as a Second Language," but the ESL period was mandated to be strictly conversational-- no grammar, spelling or reading lessons were permitted.

Not surprisingly, during the decades when bilingual education ruled in California, the state's reading scores plummeted to nearly the lowest in the nation.

Fortunately for the English-language learners of California, the courts ignored Saenz's dire warnings and upheld Proposition 227. Within one year of the measure's implementation, elementary reading scores throughout the state rose for the first time in almost 20 years. Far from inflicting untold damage on young minds, per Saenz's fervid warnings, English immersion gave thousands of English learners their first shot at learning the common language of our country.

Shortly after his failed brief against 227, Saenz became a board member of the Los Angeles County Office of Education, where he continues to serve today. A perusal of the past six years of board minutes gives some clues about Saenz's approach to educational governance.

It is clear, for starters, that he is still hostile to English instruction. Never once in the six years do the minutes show him inquiring about English immersion techniques, though he repeatedly asks county school representatives if they have adequate Spanish-speaking teachers and textbooks in Spanish. He is also on record in support of Jackie Goldberg, former LAUSD board member and state assemblywoman, who promoted bilingual education and supported the now discredited "whole language" anti-phonics, anti-grammar approach to reading.

We will know in the next few weeks if Villaraigosa will appeal the 2nd District Court's rejection of his school-takeover plan to the state Supreme Court. But the court's strongly worded rebuke of Saenz's legal reasoning in defense of AB 1381 must be resonating in the mayor's mind. The court forcefully rejected Saenz' contention that the Los Angeles City Charter, which mandates a strong, popularly elected school board with power to select a superintendent, could be circumvented by the state Legislature.

Just as Saenz misjudged the legality of Proposition 227, he appears to have done the same with the mayor's takeover bill. Meanwhile, absent any substantive talk from the mayor or Saenz about their specific intentions for the district, we are left with such clues as outlined above.

Sadly, they are not encouraging.