Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times pointed out the endlessly escalating costs of Superintendent John Deasy’s decision to buy an iPad, loaded with Pearson content, for every child.
The initial cost estimate was $1 billion for hardware, software, and content. The money was mostly taken from a 25-year school,construction bond issue. So, instead of repairing schools, students will have iPads for Common Core testing.
Hiltzik points out that in three years, the lease on the Pearson content will expire and must be purchased again for another $60 million.
Also, the iPads will be obsolete in 3-4 years and must be replaced.
Someone is making a lot of money and it’s not the teachers.
Hiltzik points out the obvious and asks this question:
“The aspect of technology-based teaching that never gets the attention it deserves is the cost of ownership. Tablets need to be fixed or replaced, for hundreds of dollars a shot. And as the LAUSD has discovered, software isn’t forever. Think of the teachers and real pedagogical tools that could be paid for with $60 million a year, and how much added value they’d provide to students.
Here’s a question for LAUSD Supt. John Deasy, who has pronounced the iPad program “an astonishing success.” Does he still think so? Feel free to deliver your answer via iPad-compatible digital video, Mr. D.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
We just have too much money for education tools. It is better to get the information straight from the teacher and leave all of these new fangled ideas alone
“Sleazy Deasy” used to peddle his stuff here in Rhode Island. Is there any “kickback connection” between Deasy and Apple? Or is that going to come later, when he lands a plum job there after leaving his post in LA?
De
asy was placed in LAUSD to destroy it.
Suggest you read this California Code section
EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 44930-44988
and then, LAUSD teachers, make a list of all the egregious things Deasy has done that may violate this code section. It is only with these facts that malfeasance can be proven.
Many of us are demanding an investigation of Deasy by CTC , which is quietly dealing with another huge scandal that also deals with Pearson and its trillions of dollars in ill gotten school funds. I have to say, some of this mess may not be Deasy’s fault at all. While he pretends this bold innovative ipad project is his brainchild, it appears there is no choice but to buy edtech, as it is necessary to use Pearson CC program. Most are going with ipads according to k-12 weekly.
There is something very insidous about this cmmon core imposing itself on the public with edtech and crazy fees for the right to use it Arne Duncan has clearly forgotten about the 10th ammendmant as he bullies states into accepting this Pearson scam ( there are plenty of investigations going on into the low quality, high cost products, as well as dodgy contracts) which has the LAUSD forking over $60 million every 3 years on top of the ipads they will be replacing at this time.
When this infomation was casually read off, Ms. Ratliff was stunned. Se stopped the man to make him clarify. Her diligence and attention to detail must be a rare quality. It is clear the other members of the BOE are not paying attention or doing their homework. I imagine this little nugget of information gets by BOE members in other cities. I do not believe they are in on the scam . I just think they are choking on copious information overload or too afraid to do what our member for the people is .Apparently this deliberate confusion is a common complaint against Pearson. So, why hasn’t Arne Duncan done his homework?
While he is thrusting this upon schools, the program itself has not really been tested But there are reports that it is not a very stable OS , meaning it is unreliable thus not a good fit for online assessments that have students frustrated and anxious as it is, Concerns about the appropriate grade level rigor and quality of content ( the commonmcore feels slapped together, test banked too) makes me wonder why we teachers are not writing lessons the way we alswys have. Sure is cheaper, more personalized and prudent. But making sense is not the reformers’ forte.
When Duncan told reporters he was not going to give funds to Schools that reject common core, it seemed like there was no longer anyway around the truth. Duncan is operating like he is part of organized crime . It is the taxpayer’s money so that makes it even worse. I guess it is more extortion than bribe.
Either way it hit me that we can make sure the billionaire investment is a loss by rejecting that core and taking Feds to task it they try to starve out schools for doing so.
The people can remove any leader they choose, and while Obama should remove Duncan as several petitions want him to, he should know he will have to go unless he abides the will of voters,.
LAUSDeasy what have you done to our children and our tax money?
http://www.examiner.com/article/lausdeasy-what-have-you-done-to-our-children-and-our-tax-money
The worst thing about this is not the money–we’ve spent six TRILLION dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should be a national priority to ensure that every child has equal access to the Net–the “world brain” that H. G. Wells dreamed of.
The worst thing is that these machines are to be used as a PUSH MEDIUM instead of as a PULL MEDIUM, not for access to the knowledge of the world but for access to some locked down, canned curricula of dubious value.
As Diane details the I Pad “fiasco”, we could laugh at the absolute absurdity of ‘Deasy’s Folly. Sadly,the pristine picture of folly that the LAUSD presents, and which that we are obligated to confront is one of victims: the school children of Los Angeles.
I would like to have a better understanding as to how this all could have been approved in the first place! There seems to be way too much purposeful lack of transparency these days in how decisions on an ever-increasing grand scale get made. Do take a look at this link to a recent Strauss article regarding one individual who is legally involved in taking Philly to task for this very kind of lack of transparency:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/11/23/in-philadelphia-schools-is-the-right-to-know-the-new-pay-for-play/
I agree. How can you take the bond issue that was voted on specifically for school costruction and buy ipads etc???
Marsha.. I wonder the very same thing and would love an investigative reporter to track every movement and deal that went from bond issue to APPLE!
In Ann Arbor, Michigan, the schools’ voter approved sinking fund can legally only be used for technology and/or construction. Not sure what the rules are for the LAUSD.
LAUSD is an organized crime facility used by corporations to score billions of dollars in contracts. Poor kids are just pawns for the school-to-prison piepline, also owned by the same corporations. There is no lack of transparency because there is no need to hid anything. They answer to no one. They own every thing and every body.
I hope I’m not being the skunk at the garden party here, but:
Superintendent Deasy is well known as an ill-tempered boor, a corporatist henchperson whose real job is to bleed the Los Angeles Unified School District dry for the sake of his corporate sponsors.
But what’s the excuse of the LAUSD School Board, which voted for this fiasco by a 6-0 margin, with only board member Bennett Kayser recusing himself because he owns Apple stock?
In addition to corporatist board members Monica Garcia, Tamar Galatzan and then-member Nury Martinez, three other board members voted for this nightmare: Richard Vladovic, Steve Zimmer and the ordinarily wonderful Marguerite LaMotte. What’s their excuse and why aren’t they shouldering any of the blame for this?
Thank you respected colleague, BlueWombat, for this clarification.
And to those who have vilified Monica Ratliff, I hope you are seeing why those of us who have supported her from the beginning were correct in assessing her intelligence and tenacity. Last week she was pilloried for abstaining from the vote to renew the Deasy contract, yet this week we see that she focuses in on the false information Deasy and his staff of inadequates made in the purchase of the iPads.
Bit by bit the taxpayers are learning about how this band of LAUSD ‘dedicders’ has misinformed and bilked us all. They not only do not belong in the roles of leadership for our second largest school district in the nation, they should be investigated for potential fraud against California taxpayers. Whether they are just stupid, or are motivated by other factors, they do not belong behind this vast public cash register.
Ellen Lubic
Ellen (or Woof?)
I agree with everything you wrote there, but have one question about the following quote:
” Last week she (Monica Ratliff) was pilloried for abstaining from the vote to renew the Deasy contract”
AFAIK we don’t have any information on how board members voted on the Deasy contract, only the result of the vote. That discussion and vote was done in closed session, only the board members, and I think they are not even allowed to tell anyone anything other than the resulting decision, but nothing about the discussion, nor who voted how.
However, I think we can reasonably assume that long-time Deasyites Galatzan and Garcia voted for that contract. By their public statements of the day before, I think we can reasonably assume that Zimmer and Vladovic voted for it as well. That in itself (4 out of 7) is enough to make a majority vote and pass something.
I would like to think that the other three (LaMotte, Kayser, and Ratliff) voted against that contract, but that is just my sincere hope, I have no information on how the actual vote went. It was not publicly reported.
Or, do you have some actual credible information on who voted how in that vote? If so, from what source? (Keeping in mind, that it is very easy for rumors to spread without facts.).
Hi Mike…thanks for all your informative comments. My error above…Ratliff abstained on the vote last week on the Deasy evaluation, and La Motte voted against Deasy, with all the others voting for him. Shocking to see that and it tells us about Vlad, Kayser, and particularly Zimmer, and how they have folded.
So we cannot count on the teacher 5 to actually all work in unison to support teachers. Only the 2 two women have the constitution to oppose the Broadies. Of course the other 2 women, double Gs, are always a lost cause.
Hang strong Marguerite LaMotte and Monica Ratliff.
Woof Thomsen,
Once again you write as if you know for sure how each board member voted in the Deasy contract extension debacle, although that vote was held in closed session, and AFAIK that info is secret and not public.
You wrote that LaMotte voted No, Ratliff abstained, and Kayser voted yes. If that is true, extremely disappointing about Kayser, who like Zimmer was only elected due to massive work by teacher son his behalf. (A little disappointing about Ratliff as well, but an abstention actually has the same effect as a no vote.)
However, I will ask you again–how do you have this info, which has not been made public at all? Where did you hear this? Are you sure it is accurate? If so, why?
It is so easy for rumors to spread, especially these days on the Internet. One person can say what they think happened, without really knowing, and then others will repeat it as if it is the truth, and it will spread and spread exponentially.
I think one has to be very careful about spreading rumors. In this case, if that info is true, it would (and should) completely ruin Bennett Kayser’s reputation among teachers, as Zimmer’s is already ruined, (by the latter’s own public statements).
Therefore, once again– are you 100% certain that the information you give about the board vote on the Deasy contract is accurate? Where did you get the info? And–why are you sure it is accurate?
Thanks.
Mike…instead of castigating, please read my apologia more carefully. It was not on the contract vote, but rather on the evaluation of Deasy that my second post rests.
All this info is online. Google it!
Woof-Ellen,
In no way did I “castigate” you. In fact, I appreciate your writing very much.
I simply asked you, for the second time, how did you get that information?
It doesn’t matter whether it was about the evaluation or contract–that was all done in secret closed session, and the information on those votes (other than the results) is not public.
You still have not answered my question, after I asked it twice. I will ask now for a third time–where did you get the info about the board’s votes in 10/29 closed session, and how do you know that info is accurate?
I pointed out that we (human beings in general, not a particular criticism of you) have to be very careful about spreading information we heard as “facts”, unless we are absolutely sure that information is accurate. Especially if iit is information that could significantly damage a person’;s reputation, as I pointed out this could.
So once again I will ask you for a third time–How did you get that information about the board votes in closed session on 10/29? Are you absolutely certain that information is accurate? If so, why do you feel certain about it?
Once again, I am not criticizing you, but simply asking you a question, for the third time. I would appreciate an answer. Thank you.
Sorry folks for this long comment…but it is for the benefit of Mike who is worried about misinformation.
In Vote to Keep Deasy, an Abstention Remains a Mystery
Posted on November 21, 2013 by Michael Janofsky
Board Member Monica Ratliff: No vote
Board Member Monica Ratliff: No vote
The LA Unified board’s recent 5-1 vote on Superintendent John Deasy’s performance evaluation, released by the district on Tuesday after requests from several media outlets, cast a curious light on board member sentiments during a period of enormous challenge and contentiousness.
Two of the five votes were entirely expected: Monica Garcia and Tamar Galatzan are consistently supportive of Deasy in words and votes.
The three other votes to approve came from frequent critics – President Richard Vladovic, Steve Zimmer and Bennett Kayser – whose support seemed to signal at least a temporary Kumbaya moment, that they are willing to work with Deasy for the time being even if they disagree on one policy issue or another.
Those five kept him in office, with a contract extension through mid-2016.
Marguerite LaMotte was the lone dissenter, which was not considered a surprise. With close ties to the teachers union, UTLA, she is a strong opponent of Deasy-style reform, and as an aide to one board member said, “The shock would have been if she had voted for him.”
LaMotte’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
The real head scratcher was the board’s newest member, Monica Ratliff. She abstained.
In just six months, Ratliff has shown to be an immersive force on the board, diving deeply into issues that she cares about and expressing herself always with unambiguous language.
As a former lawyer and teacher, she asks lots of questions and as chair of the Common Core Technology Project Committee, she almost single-handedly forced the district to reconsider the massive iPad program, raising the entirely credible proposition that high school kids might be served better by laptops than iPads.
But when it has come to Deasy, she has equivocated. Early in her election campaign for the board, she told LA School report that she would “terminate his contract and suggest we do another search” in which he could be a candidate.
A month later, when the LA Times’ editorial board was reconsidering its endorsement of her, she told the editorial board that she had spoken in response to complaints that Deasy was hired without a search and that her words were taken out of context. She went on to say if she were in a position to decide on Deasy’s contract at that time, she would vote to renew it.
That was April. Six months later, on Oct. 29, when the opportunity came — in what several board staffers described as the single most important vote a board member could take –something apparently had changed again. She passed.
Why? Hard to know. Ratliff did not respond to several efforts to reach her for comment.
A staffer for another board member wondered why any member would decline to vote on an issue so critical to the operation and future of the school district, approval of the superintendent.
On the other hand, a former board member speculated that Ratliff simply decided not voting was preferable to voting no and appearing as an outward antagonist when the outcome was assured, anyway.
“Boards prefer that their votes are unanimous,” the former member said. “ So a 5-to-1 vote looks better than a 5-to-2 vote. It’s a pro-institutional thing, the team approach.”
So MIKE…this should define for you the votes taken.
Woof-Ellen-
Thank you for posting where you got the “info” about a vote by the school board in closed session, a vote and discussion that was secret (other than the results) due to being in closed session, where no one was present other than the board members, and they are not allowed to disclose what occurred in the meeting, other than the result of the vote (but not who voted how).
You got it from a post on the Internet on November 21, 2013 by someone named Michael Janofsky. You didn’t say where you saw that post, nor who Janofsky is, nor how he got that information.
It is true, from the writing style, that he sounds authoritative, like he knows what he is talking about. But there are a lot of good BSers in the world who can make lies sound very convincing. (I am not calling Janofsky a liar, I just have no idea if what he wrote there is true or not.)
Therefore, without further verification, I certainly would not repeat what Janofsky writes above as if it is true. I don’t know that. You do as you wish, but recall what I wrote about spreading rumors, which spread very far and wide on the Internet, every day.
If however, you have more information about who this guy Janofsky is, how he got that info, etc., please share it.
Thanks again.
The Janofsky article is from LA School Report, a pro-Deasy, pro-privatization website.
http://laschoolreport.com/author/mjanofsky/
That is indeed interesting.Thanks for that clarification, and the link.
He reports that news as if it is definite fact.
Yet, no explanation of how he got such info.
Has any similar report appeared in other publications, such as the LA Times?
One would think that if that info were verifiable, that all local papers would publish that news, something that I am sure many people are curious about?
Mike..was gonna let it go..but it bothered me all day that you think that things that the LA Times publish are always, or are ever, valid.
Did you miss the issue some weeks back with the headline
“DEASY RESIGNS”???? This did not even bring an apologia from then.
Sloppy journalism…and then there have been all the glowing articles on Ben Austin and Parent Rev….on and on…slanted and misinforming.
The good article is by Hitzlik on the iPad fiasco, a syndicated journalist who is not one the their local Ed writers.
Ellen
Ellen-Woof,
Regarding your comment–“Mike..was gonna let it go..but it bothered me all day that you think that things that the LA Times publish are always, or are ever, valid”.
I never said (or wrote) any such thing, so I am sorry that you were bothered all day by something you imagined that I said.
However, there have been good education articles in the Times before (including about the Ipad fiasco), by their regular ed writers such as Blume and Watanabe. Steve Lopez has had good columns about LAUSD as well.
I was very disappointed though, in their coverage of Deasy’s Halloween Surprise October 29. (Almost as if the corporation suddenly ordered them to “go easy on Deasy”)
I hope they get better again. The Hiltzik article was a good sign.
I would say that the ed coverage in the LA Times is certainly more reliable than LA Weekly or LA School Report.
But I never said anything remotely like what you ascribe to me above.
LA School Report dropped the truth about a week ago, not sure how they got it in light of what Mike points out. I believe someon said Lamott was a sure vote against Deasy.i had no idea who would vote what, but she is the only one to ever stand up to the others. I believe she chooses her battles carefully and we mistake that for fence sitting, but believe me, she does not play. . As for Ratliff, she chose the best option given the pressure the press put her under. She has a valid reason for not voting too. She has only been on the board a few months.
Of course, most of us see him as a failure or worse, but we do not have to deal with Deasy up close and personal, much less his cohort of powerful freinds like Garcetti. I sure hope that new Mayor gets it when we usurp his billionire backers. We do not want them in our schools and he needs to but out too.
The question is–what do we do about sellouts like Steve Zimmer, and if the info in the article is true (which I am still not 100% certain of), Bennett Kayser as well?
They probably take teacher support for granted, feel they have us in their pocket, so they can try to get support from the other side as well, campaign money from Gates and the charter school association, etc., and hope that they don’t run candidates against them next time.
How do we show these guys (or guy, if it’s not true about Kayser) that we are not in their pocket, they cannot take us for granted, and that they have totally lost teacher support with that vote?
Perhaps the rheeformers won’t run candidates against them next time, happy with their vote for Deasy. Then we should– find a good candidate to run against a sellout like Zimmer. He (or they) would then get massive financial support from the deform coalition, but our grassroots work has always prevailed against their big money, certainly in electing those two guys.
Of course then the new candidates we elect could become sellouts, but after the example we would set by running candidates against the sellouts and beating them, that would be less likely to occur after that.
How about a move to recall all LAUSD school board members other than LaMotte and Ratliff?
bluewombat.. sometimes I think there is a lethal mixture of those up to no good intentions who PR their agenda (Deasy) and sucker in a lot of others (aka school board) who just “don’t do their homework” and whose fault is being lazy but not necessarily bad intentioned. Maybe this is the situation with the school board? Hopefully they are not also receiving some form of hidden kickback!
Thanks to the two previous commenters.
I just wanted to get my thoughts on the record, because at some point, Sleazy Deasy is going to say, “Look, the School Board signed off on it unanimously (absent the one abstention). What’s your beef with me?”
It’s my fondest wish that Deasy will be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. But whether it was due to corruption or fecklessness, we have to face up to the School Board’s role in this debacle.
artseagal,
The board members are only interested in their own careers. Who do you think spent millions to get them elected?
I agree. There was a real lack of oversight there by the board, even by LaMotte, who is no Deasy fan. (Zimmer on the other hand, has turned out to be a total Deasy fan and a traitor to the teachers who elected him.) They were all probably wowed by the sales pitches and buzz words about “bringing education into the 21st century”, “civil rights issue”, blah blah blah. Quite naive if you ask me!I would hope that they would do their oversight duties now, and really investigate this thing. Of course though, with Zimmer having defected to the dark side, and Vladovic seemingly blackmailed into submission, only possible decent board members left (Kayser, LaMotte, and Ratliff) are a minority of three out of seven.
Can school board members be recalled?
PS However, Wombat–although it was negligent of the then school board to almost unanimously approve the ipad nonsense (likely without knowing much about it, without necessary investigation, just responding to a few flowery words they heard), that in no way absolves Deasy of any responsibility, not one iota. The main culprit here is Deasy, along with a few henchmen like Aquino. No way that that board vote absolves him of anything.
I agree that the cost of ownership is a very important point and at a minimum that could and should have been written into this type of contract.
The renewal of the Pearson license is a different issue. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Pearson’s going in price for the renewal is $60 million. After a year, LAUSD should be able to gauge the usefulness of the existing Pearson material. Is it great? OK? Flawed? Assuming that some textbooks are still being bought, how much money is no longer being spent on textbooks because of the use of eTextbooks? The LAUSD budget is voluminous but it appears that roughly $50 million was on the textbook line in 2011-12. There is another line for instructional materials which is $120 million. It is unclear what this includes. Bottom line, I would say the LAUSD’s negotiating position needs to be considerably less than $60 million and even lower if the material is not viewed as “great”. If so then it is time now to be looking at alternative suppliers to Pearson for this material.
LA’s iPad Wars are not the greatest problems facing LAUSD’s kids nor other kids in similar urban districts. The iPads are, however, representative of a mind-set that is destroying public education as we know it.
We saw Arne Duncan’s white suburban Mom comment last week create a firestorm because it exposed the role of Economic Class in the discussion of both Common Core in particular and Corporate School Reform in general.
Here in LA, like many of you who have followed the School Reform movement over the past few years, it appears that it is ONLY when primarily white, middle/upper-middle class parents voice concern for whatever nonsense the Reform movement is foisting on THEIR kids, that something gets done to stop the process or politicians take some note. When “Reform” is happening in poor urban districts, there is no groundswell to stop the rapacious effects on education there. These kids, parents and teachers have almost no advocates talking for them and, most disheartening of all, the poor who make up the usual Democratic Party constituents, have almost no “friends” high up who will fight for them when it comes to education. Worse, in most cases, the Democratic Party works AGAINST their interests, actively hurting their communities.
I have always understood the Republicans all-out assault on the public education system–starving it for funds, lobbying hard for vouchers, supporting charter and private schools and the market to compete for students and money–and of course, every single GOP Presidential candidate has to pledge to eliminate the Dept. of Education.
But what is most heart-breaking to me is that it is the Democratic Party, and those with a supposedly liberal progressives bent, who are the ones acting in grotesquely racist and classist manners in how they view the public school students of the nation. In many cases, as here in Los Angeles, the Democrats are far worse than the Republicans.
For California Dems, it’s so easy to be pro-gay, immigration-reform, let’s-keep-abortion-safe-and-legal-rights and “right” on all the social issues. But the Democrat Money-class sides completely with Far Right Republicans out here when it comes to education. There is scarce difference between our LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy and Governors Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Rick Scott or Bobby Jindal. And the Democratic power structure here in LA including the powerful The LA Times editorial board supports these GOP reforms/power plays at every juncture.
Usually, the Democratic Party power structure balks at being associated with anything the GOP comes up with EXCEPT School Reform. On this issue they are Blood Brothers.
There are so many people on the Left who despise what is happening in the schools of LA (and across the nation) but they do not have the financial clout to fight back. We are marginalized by the Arne Duncans and the LA School Board as Tea Partiers when nothing could be further from the truth.
The difference in the Education Progressives vs. the 1% Moneyed-Democrats is obvious: One side doesn’t have a single billionaire. The other side have tons. And then tons behind those tons. The same Wall Street interests who support Education Reform give to BOTH parties because they want a seat at the table no matter who wins.
So they always win.
At our LA High School, a principal was installed two years ago to implement John Deasy’s reform plan on graduating more kids. This is how it works at our school: Cut all the classes back to the absolute state minimum of time allotted to still receive credit, add an extra class in there that is completely bogus in nature calling it “Advisory” for full credit and then stuff every single class with 40 to 50 kids. On top of that, the requirements have been lowered for graduation in general.
This is John Deasy’s legacy. Yes, graduation rates may be up incrementally, but for God’s sake, will the Red Cross or UN Peace Keeper agency please come into my school and look at the conditions the students are forced to learn under?!
Our local media has endless reports of Deasy bragging about his success. True, the kids may have received credit in a class, but they didn’t get an education–or at least what I would want my own child to receive. But the “education” that Deasy prescribes for kids not his own, sets the bar so low that only a test score in his pedagogy is the proper measure of success.
None of the moneyed class Democrats would EVER send their kids to my school. If they thought their kids were getting this sort of education, they would flee (and of course have–look where their kids go). But for my kids, it’s great! That is why the Democrats are even more contemptible than the Republicans. Republicans are at least honest in their revulsion.
John Deasy insufferably brays to me that what my kids MOST need is an iPad. Now, even the almost the entire LAUSD School Board has embraced as its Number One Priority. If a Martian wanted to know about the philosophy of Education among those who have the most power to alter its course, the iPad initiative and steamroll sums up everything they think of my students and their welfare.
There is precious little learning going on in our high school which before Deasy’s arrival had so much promise and cool activites for kids. The shape our school is now in is NOT our teachers’ fault. It is the fault of LAUSD administrators who have radically changed the notion and structure of education in LA.
This is Deasy’s legacy and his iPad’s triumph.
Yes, the kids go to our school/factory, just one small part of the bigger LAUSD, INC. and muddle through the best they can. There are so few electives at our school. Our course catalogue looks like some looted grocery store after a disaster. Oh, but there’s an iPad on the shelf instead of a drama class. Education in LAUSD has become child abuse at its worst and it is fostered on them by John Deasy who celebrates this lame, anti-critical thinking pedagogy.
On a side note that isn’t a side note: It’s shocking how many out-spoken teachers that have fought against Deasy’s positions now find themselves in teacher jails on absurd charges.
Ask ANY senior student on my campus if they have EVER gone on a SINGLE field trip in the four years they attended our school. Less than half would say they had. I have NEVER heard John Deasy (a good Democrat) once complain that this sort of learning was a Civil Rights issue. That’s because to these sorts of Democrats, it isn’t. To Democrats like Arne Duncan, Mayor Eric Garcetti, LA SCHOOL REPORT’S Jamie Alter Lynton, Bill Gates, Michelle Rhee, Rahm Emanuel, Paul Vallas, Cory Booker, John King, the Political Action Groups who use their muscle to show movies like WAITING FOR SUPERMAN and WON’T BACK DOWN at the Democratic Conventions–the problems aren’t poverty or the conditions of the school.
Invariably, it’s the teachers. Or the union. You all have heard it all ad infinitum.
Chief Democrat Barack Obama is the lamest, saddest case of all. A man who has chosen a school for his own daughter’s education, Sidwell Friends, is a gloriously progressive school where teachers radically, philosophically oppose the very education he wants to give the kids of our nation.
So I wonder readers of this blog, how best to fight back when there is so much money out there that supports the power elites of both parties? What is the future to be when nationwide, all local school board elections are going to get huge PAC/billionaire $ to enact their agenda? I fear less for public schools in more well-to-do areas whose parents (the white, suburban moms in Arne Duncan’s statement whose wrath and political clout he MOST fears) have now created a firestorm that he will have to respond to and make his “I-didn’t-mean-to-say” statement–but for any urban district whose parents don’t have that kind of influence, the future looks bleak.
Encouragement, anyone?
Once again, most respected colleague, Geronimo, you get a loud BINGO!
I am in agreement with all that you say. However, you left off the list of pseudo-Democrats our former Mayor, Tony Villaraigosa, and his cousin, Speaker of our State House, but thank goodness not for long, John Perez. These two have damaged public ed in California and in LA, widely by colluding with billionaire phony Dems, particularly Eli Broad, to promote charter schools which steal ADA from our public schools.
Your focus on real inner city parents is key, those who clammer for better public schools which include more of the fired trained teachers to be hired back and make class sizes managable, same for librarians who helped ELL students with language arts, and school nurses who give children their required meds and do not let them die in the hallways.
We have not forgotten the Deasy/Garcia/Broad/Austin-Rose/Ryan farce of Oct. 29 when these oligarchs who are represented by the most powerful law firms in the nation, orchestrated their photo op of Deasy supporters. The 160 people they bussed in to Beaudry were not the true droves, tens of thousands, of inner city parents who do not get their voices heard.
And the high school situtation you speak of, your work place, is repticated all over our County…see Verdugo, Hamilton, Venice, Crenshaw…and others where Deasy lies, screams, and unilaterally makes changes by tearing down working collaborative programs and instead, imbedds his toadie principals to charterize them.
Why aren’t the Dems in LA screaming to be heard at BoE meetings?
Thank you G. for all your cogent comments.
Monica Ratliff…hang tough! The public supports you as our voice of reason.
Ellen Lubic
Until, good Geronimo, YOU, and others like you recognize that nowadays there is no such thing as a “good Democrat,” things will remain as they are. If you cannot join forces with the Tea Party to LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT, not just correct the policy of government (which cannot be done in any case), you will continue to see the suffering you see. The fundamental political vision of Democrats from President Obama on down is flawed. Fix that and you can fix how education is delivered.
Harlan,
I would never join the Tea Party for many reasons, but I will completely agree with you that the vast majority of Democrats are rotten to the core. . . . . and SO it is the same with the Republicans.
Once upon a time, the Democrats really represented the average person so much more deeply, consistently, and comprehensively.
No more.
I support neither party, save for a handful of people, most of whom are on the blue side of the aisle.
Hence, we are stuck with Obamacare, CCSS, and RttT.
We also have to deal with Mr. I-really-need-to-get-some-grammar-lessons-and-speech-therapy Arne Duncan.
The party name means nothing; the ordinary working person in the United States faces oppression caused by both parties, and until we evolve as a society, we will just face increasing economic and social fascism . . . . . .
We don’t need to limit the power of government. We need to return that power to its rightful hands – the people.
And just who are “the people”?
Dienne,
Yes!!!!!!
We the people are no longer the government, but we still can, as Ann Roosevelt recently said, become the government.
It does not have to be an entity separate from and alien to the rest of us. By civically participating on a constant basis in all directions, we can once again become “we the people as our government” as opposed to “we the people ruled top-down by those other people known as government”.
I do believe in big government permeation of our society and culture as long as the institutions within government heed to popular will, for the most part. Otherwise, we don’t have a real democracy, no?
Thank you for making your point. It was excellent and sobering.
Even with “popular will” we don’t have a real democracy. Majority rule is NOT democracy. Protection of the minority from the majority is real democracy. The Senate just stopped being a democratic body by changing its rules to require only 51 votes for confirmation of judges. The elimination of the filibuster, i.e. 60 votes needed to close debate, is the elimination of true democracy, which must have a super majority requirement in it to protect the minority. Thus I see Harry Reid and Obama as unforgivably corrupt, especially Obama. Reid is Obama’s middle forefinger to the nation.
Great post, Geronimo. Thank you!
The only other thing I would say about it is–can we please stop calling them “education reformers”. They may call themselves that, but it is a lie, and we shouldn’t cooperate with the lie by calling them that.
Reform is a good word, meaning positive change. For instance, I would guess that most of us here are for health care reform, and campaign finance reform. Why not for education reform? Well yes, for real education reform. But the folks who have been throwing that term around, those you mention, are not really reformers at all. Let’s not cede that word to them, but point out that they are not reformers at all.
They use that word to look good to the public, and it is an attractive word to politicians, especially Democrats. They try to paint us (and teachers in general as being “anti-reform”, ie wanting to keep the status quo. We should not play into that tactic of theirs by calling them “reformers” and saying we are against reform.
High-stakes standardized testing is certainly not reform. It is the status quo in American public education, and it has been that way for decades, got much worse during the GW Bush administration, and still much worse under Obama-Duncan. It is destroying education in this country. That is the status quo. The people who want to move education in this country still further in that wrong direction, already prevalent in the nation for decades, cannot call themselves reformers. Rather, they are reactionaries.(Calling them “education reformers” is somewhat akin to calling someone who wants to eliminate Medicare a “health care reformer”.)
So let’s make it clear, in public discussion, that the people like those you mention are in fact not education reformers at all, that they are being dishonest in their use of the term, and that what they are pushing for is in fact not reform at all, but more of the same bad status quo.that is destroying American education.
And-we should say that we are for education reform, and make clear what that is–a change away from the current status quo,, a move towards less standardized testing, away from “teaching to the test”, , allowing and fostering more creativity on the part of teachers, less standardization and scripting, more arts education, etc. In short, a move to a model more like that of Finland, which has proven to be successful. Or a move to change public schools to be more like the school where Obama sends his daughters. (Shouldn’t he be for that kind of education reform?)
I think it is important that we change the terms of the discussion in that way. Some might say it is only a matter of terminology, words. Yet politicians, and the media, deal all the time in buzz words, often in quick headlines without all the details. Most citizens don’t really know too much about education, and might judge things by a few buzz words they hear. If the bad folks are called “reformers” and we who want to change things are called “anti-reform”, that doesn’t look good for us. I think it important that we don’t let them get away with painting it that way, and that we try to change the terms of discussion in the media and politics. Please lets stop calling them “reformers”.
Sorry for the long rant, but I think it an important point..
On EDNotes they use the term Ed Deformers and I think Karen Lewis used the term Privateers or Privatizers.
You’re right, words are important.
…or the most popular usage…Rheeformers…
@ Mike.. I NEVER fail to put “ed reformer” in quotes when citing these corporate profiteers because the quote indicates that this is NOT REAL! While I feel like you do and detest their self-given title.. it is THE ONE that the public hears day in and day out.. so I continue to protest it by adding the truly important “quotes” and never sway from this. A friend once suggested I call them education deformers but what goes out in the media is “ed reformer” so I stick with it with my added quotations.
Artseagel,
Yes, important if one calls those folks “reformers”, to at least use quotation marks. Better yet to preface the term by “so-called”. And I like terms that folks (including myself) have used such as “deformers” or “rheeformers”.
However, I think we are losing a PR and political war in this country, and have to think about how to radically change the way this issue is discussed, not just with each other on blogs like this, but to the general public.
We have to think about how these issues look to John Q Public and John Q Politician. (And of course the Mary Qs as well! No sexism implied! 😉 ) If the average person saw the word deformer or rheeformer they wouldn’t have the slightest idea what that means, although obvious to us. They wouldn’t even really get the quotation marks.
The unfortunate fact is, the average person does not delve deeply into issues, and certainly not education. Politiicians don’t either. They hear a few headlines and buzz words, and make judgements from that. If they hear that one side is “education reformers”, trying to improve education for children and very concerned with civil rights, and the other side are anti-reform, evil teachers unions that don’t care about kids, but only about keeping “bad teachers”, most people (unless they have a teacher in the family who refutes it) will believe that stuff. Politicians find it popular to spout that stuff. Chris Christie, a Republican, just won big in a heavily Democratic state with that kind of rhetoric, and the media is now championing him as the great “moderate” Republican hope for President in 2016. Other politicians will take notice of that, and will think it will help them to be “for education reform” as well. (That is why I wrote in another post that it would be good if we cold get to Hillary Clinton and try to educate her about education issues, and hope that she does not jump onto that bandwagon as well.) (I don’t know how we could get to her. Diane, is there any possibility that you might be able to arrange a meeting wither her, either just yourself or with other education leaders such as Linda Darling-Hammond?)
The fact is, although words like “reformers” ae just words, labels, they make a lot of difference to John and Mary Q Public and Politician. If the issue as framed as “education reformers” vs. anti-reformers, we have lost. It is that simple. We should not say that we are against education reform, but that what the so-called “reformers” are advocating is not really reform at all. They are the status quo of American education. If they proclaim that “American education is failing”, if that were true, whose fault is it? They are in charge of American education, including the Federal Dept of Education under Duncan, and in charge of major city school districts such as New York, Los Angeles, and several others. It is they who are failing. Real education reform is a change away from that failing model. We are the education reformers, in wanting to change American public education away from that failing model.
I don’t know how to get that information out more to the media, to parents, and to politicians, but I think it important that it be done. And especially, we cannot fall into the trap of calling them reformers, and say that we are opposed to reform. That gives them exactly what they want.
Do you really see ObamaCare as health care “reform”? You need to think about the consistency of your OWN terminology. What the President said about keeping one’s health care policy if one liked it was not a “mistake” or an “incorrect promise” but a LIE. And a lie perpetrated to destroy private health care (probably) and subject that sector of the economy to government regulation. Similarly, education “reform” is perpetrated to gain complete control over education nationally. (Of course, it’s a paradox that education reform seems to be have the effect of pushing more people into charters and eventually vouchers in order to escape the RTTT requirements and the CCSS.) The purpose of reform should be to make any institution and its processes more honest and able to benefit individuals by restoring freedom to individuals. Neither health care “reform” nor education “reform” does that, except by accident in education, and it is not even clear that charters and vouchers actually give individuals more freedom of choice in education itself, in learning outcomes.
Harlan Teaparty,
You are way off topic as usual. This is not a forum about Obamacare. You can go to a Tea Party forum to rant and rave about that.
If you want to know my opinion on that issue though, yes, I am in favor of the Affordable Care Act, or as you call it, “Obamacare”. It is certainly not my preferred model of health care reform. (And I would guess, not President Obama’s preferred model either.) I would like to see a single payer health plan in the USA, such as exists in most of the developed world. Everyone is covered under such a plan, and the costs are much lower. (My guess is, you would even be more opposed to a single payer plan.)
It would be impossible for a single payer plan to pass the US Congress though, so controlled by corporate lobbyists, including the health insurance industry, So there had to be many compromises, in order to get Congress to pass any kind of health care reform. The resulting plan (which you call Obamacare) is actually a very Republican free-enterprise plan, almost identical to the Romneycare plan in Massachusetts, a plan first proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Enough compromises were made that even the health insurance industry agreed to it, and even the AMA, both bitterly opposed to any prior health insurance reform.
It is a very flawed and compromised health care reform plan, and far from what I would have liked to happen. However, it is the only health care reform that could have passed the US Congress as it is now. (it sure would be great though, if we could reduce the impact of money on politics.) And it certainly includes some major improvements over the status quo beforehand–such as making sure that all are covered, no rejection for pre-existing conditions, subsidizing premiums for those who cannot afford to pay them, etc. It definitely is an improvement over the previous status quo and so yes–I support the ACA. I think it is the major achievement of the Obama administration, that he was able to pass some health care reform with all the opposition to it, whereas others (like the Clintons) failed to do so.
And guess what? Despite some people having been scared by all the crazed Republican-Tea Party hate scare rhetoric about “Obamascare”, after the program has settled in more, and people see the benefits of it, the American public will be strongly in favor of it, and would totally object to it being removed. (In fact, that is what the Republcians fear most, why they have been desperately trying to kill the bill before it takes root.
The exact same scare tactics were used (cries of “socialism”, “destroy our freedom”, etc., were made against Social Security, Medicare, etc. (In fact, Ronald Reagan, before he had become CA governor, made a famous speech warning about Medicare destroying our freedom, etc. Of course after Medicare was established, people liked it, no serious politician could propose eliminating it, including President Reagan.
I would guess though, that you would be in favor of eliminating Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc.? Answer that honestly. (Although from your picture, I would guess that you benefit from Medicare and Social Security. Yet I guess it is easy to advocate against them, knowing that (elimination of them) would never really occur and affect you.)
Who is your preferred presidential candidate, Harlan–Rand Paul or Ted Cruz?
This issue is really way off-topic though, and I shouldn’t have responded to it. Although I am all for free speech, I would guess that most here are in favor of health care reform (although I would guess also that most, like me, would prefer a single-payer system), and that you have no chance of convincing people otherwise, so why waste your time with it, and throw discussions about education way off-track? (Most of the people who write here are teachers, educated people. Not likely that many here would respond to the scare rhetoric about “Obamascare”.)
Would it were merely scare rhetoric about ObamaCare. I doubt we have seen the full dimensions of its disaster. Nevertheless, thank you for actually engaging, Mike, rather than just mocking me as if I were an idiot child. I happen to think debate over the record of the federal government in running a number of its bureaus and departments is actually relevant to what it is promoting in education. The true test of any legislation is always going to be the costs and benefits it brings to individuals. The misguidedness of Prohibition is probably acknowledged by all. The same may be true for ObamaCare as well as for NCLB, RTTT, and the CCSS.
That’s all I’m saying. Perhaps it might be better to let the states handle regulation of education and health care within their own boundaries rather than for the federal government with its immense and expanding expenditures and regulations to get involved. I’m all for reform if it is needed, but as we have seen in education, reform means something completely different to the federal government than it does to the teacher in the classroom. In health care, it seems to me that the cure is worse than the disease.
I am, of course, out to try to convince people of the rightness of my position, but since I’m not fully sure of the rightness of my position on many policy matters, my posts are also a way of testing whether they can stand up to rational debate. They are partly, then, a way to try to work out my own understanding of contemporary events and policy conflicts through debate. This blog may not be the proper place, but it is certainly better than most other sites I have seen. Other posters are informed, articulate, and passionate. Clearly no one has an duty to educate me, but some occasionally turn aside and try to do so. I think policy decisions should be based on solid philosophical principals, and that is what I am probing for: the fundamental assumptions upon which people’s conclusions and policy support are based.
Harlan,
Regarding the question of state vs federal–
That all depends who is running those agencies.
Currently terrible federal educational leadership in Arne Duncan. We have better educational leadership in California, with Gov. Brown and State Supt. Tom Torlakson., But here in LA we have terrible leadership at the local level, in LAUSD. (What this thread was about.)
Other states have terrible state educational leadership. And hopefully (cross fingers) we might have better federal leadership in the future. So no, I would not generalize that state and local is better than federal.
Regarding health care–no, it needs to be national. Do you think Medicare should be broken up by states? That if you moved to another state you might lose your health benefits?
Should Social Security be broken up by state?
Seriously consider the following:
What if you were under 65, so not on Medicare, and self-employed, so no employer health insurance. Your only option would be an individual plan, but due to your health condition, all insurance companies denied you due to a pre-existing condition?
If you were in that position, wouldn’t you be happy that ACA passed, and allowed you to get health insurance?
Seriously put yourself in that position. Millions of people are in that position, and now for the first time can get health insurance. (Well, there have been problems with the rollout, but within months they will all have it.)
Even if looked at from a purely selfish perspective, not caring about others—Do you realize what happens when someone has no health insurance, no money, and needs health care? They go to the emergency room. Who pays for that care? We all do. Certainly cheaper to help all to have medical insurance, than to pay for all that extra emergency room care.
The ACA is far from the health care reform I would like to see (which you would likely dislike much more), but is certainly an improvement over how it was before. (Taking some time to get off the ground and work out glitches though.)
I take your point about SS and Medicare needing to be national, and by implication accept your premise that whatever health care law covering everyone else should be national as well. HOWEVER, if the only rationale for ObamaCare is coverage of pre-existing conditions that can and could be fixed by less radical methods than having the federal goveernment regulate all health care policies nation wide. It would probably have to be a special subsidized risk pool, but pre-existing conditions are not a justification for stipulating that EVERY policy must be of a certain sort. 60 year old men don’t need abortion coverage. What you call “glitches” I believe will turn out to be irremediable flaws in the design and concept. It WILL collapse of itself. And when that happens I’ll tell you “I told you so,” OR I will be proved wrong. My son lost his policy and can’t afford a new one, so my ox is gored. Next year my secondary insurance will most likely have a price I cannot afford. So, no one in my household benefits. And wait until the cancellations from the business world hit. The citizen backlash will be immense. Sarah Palin was ridiculed for talking about “death panels” but they are really part of the law. The law will eventually have to be paid for by restrictions on services. The message to ME of the hot shots in Washington is “Let the old folks die by denying them service. They are not contributing anything anyway.” Class warfare, generational warfare. Unintended consequences by the millions.
Harlan, as I wrote to you before, this thread about the LAUSD Ipad Fiasco is not the place to discuss Obamacare, nor this site overall.
You misquote me, as I did not say that the only reason for the ACA is pre-existing conditions. That is an important factor though. Also, the important fact that everyone is covered.
You say it hsould be dealt with by the states? Has it? Only a few states, like Massachusetts, have dealt with the problem. There was a crying need for a federal solution.
The ACA is actually a very Republican free-enterprise solution. It is very similar to the plan proposed by the conservative Heritage FOundation, when they were afraid of the Clintons instituting a more liberal form of health care reform, they developed a more conservative business-friendly plan as an alternative.The plan Mitt Romney created in Massachusetts was based on it, and so is the ACA, very similar to Romneycare.
If the ACA had been proposed by a Republican president, most Republican Senators and Congressmen would have supported it. However, since they decided early on to oppose anything Obama did, they unanimously opposed it, and have ranted on with their idiotic scare rhetoric about “communist government takeover”, which seems to have affected you. As a Republican, you should like the plan, completely run by the private insurance companies.
As a liberal Democrat, I don’t like the plan, but it is better than the previous status quo, and was the best plan that Obama could get through Congress, with the immense power of the insurance lobby.
Tell me how you would like the following plan–much simpler than the complicated ACA. You are on Medicare. Why should it be available for only people over 65? Expand it to all ages. Then everyone would be covered. Then no need for an employer mandate or an individual mandate, all covered.by Medicare. It would be great for business, not having to pay for employee health insurance. (Although some might offer supplemental insurance as a perk, like you have. But they would not have to.) Yes, it would increase taxes. No such thing as a free lunch. But it would be a cheaper lunch, as the cost of increased taxes wouild be much less than the savings on insurance premiums currently paid to private insurers, which have skyrocketed in recent years.
Of course the private health insurers would scream bloody murder about this, and that is why it has not happened, due to their lobby. But they would not go out of business with such a national health insurance, which is the norm in all other developed countries but the USA. For, they could still sell supplemental plans, as they now do for those over 65, they could then sell to all, to employers who wish to offer it, etc.
So Harlan, since you don’t like the “complicated” ACA, and since you seem to like being on Medicare (since you are accepting it, and allow Medicare to pay your doctors), would you accept the very simple plan of expanding Medicare to all ages? (That would eliminate your son;’s health insurance problem, to be sure.) Please reply to that question.
Or, as I asked you before, are you for the elimination of Medicare entirely, for all ages? After all Ronald Reagan warned that it would take away our freedom, it was branded “communist” and “socialist”, etc. If so, then you should stand by your beliefs and not accept Medicare payments to your doctors.
Your scare talk about “death panels” is nonsensical. Private insurers are now (well before ACA) very concerned about cost-cutting, and rationing care. No reason to believe that ACA, nor what I suggest above, would make that worse. (In fact, private HMOs are much worse about rationing than Medicare.) Furthermore, you are talking about elderly people. Elderly people are already covered by Medicare, so not really affected by the ACA, nor the suggestion I made above about expanding Medicare to all ages.
By the way Harlan, do you think that President Obama was born in the United States?
This really is not a tea party forum though.
You raise a legitimate question: why not Medicare for all? I don’t know the economics of such a proposal, but I do not think it is what you say it would be. My suspicion is that there isn’t enough money to pay for elite health care for all, even as there isn’t enough money to pay for elite education for all. I think probably the right theoretical position is abolition of Medicare, as Reagan said. Likewise Social Security. If I were wealthier, I would, of course, reject both. Personally I’m at a bit of a bind at this point in my life, never having questioned the system until recently and made my choices based on received opinion rather than what I had reasoned would be best for me. I sold my soul to the government programs, and I am their slave now. I always thought I had freedom, but didn’t really think about it.
You are drifting into liberal mockery a bit. It is beneath you. Or I hope it is beneath you, but I have come to conclude very little is beneath liberal Democrats either in corruption of thought or corruption of legislation.
As I said earlier, education, the means of providing education, is but one aspect of an entire social theory which is also working itself out in the medical sector.
Of the rights adumbrated in Declaration of Independence, to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” do you believe that they include a “right” to an education and a “right” to medical care? Why not a right to food, to clothing, to a house, and a car? If someone has a right to something that implies someone else has a “duty” to supply it. What then do you, as an individual, have a duty to supply your neighbor with?
Re: “(And I would guess, not President Obama’s preferred model either.) ”
Obama has been very good at convincing good people that he doesn’t really support his own right of center policies, even though his actions demonstrate that he favors Common Core and school privatization (except for his own children), and the ACA, with its high deductible plans.
He’s concerned with pleasing the billionaires who put him in office, not the American people.
I disagree with you, Susan.
Obama is certainly very wrong about education, and the guy he appointed to run the education department. I don’t think Obama really knows much about education, and has made a major mistake in entrusting it to Duncan. (All human beings make mistakes though,. That doesn’t make him an evil villain.)
The world really is not in black and white though, with everyone a hero or a villain. The repubs try to vilify Obama, I certainly do not.There really are many shades of gray in the world Susan, it isn;t so simple as you make out.
No, I don’t think that Obama is only concerned about helping billionaires and not helping people. Not at all.
As I pointed out, the ACA is a very flawed plan, far from the health care reform I would like to see, but certainly with some major improvements over the status quo. Obama tried to get better features, but had to compromise a lot to get it through Congress. Without such compromises, there woudl be no health care reform at all.
Would you prefer that no health care reform have been enacted at all? Will you join Harlan and the Tea Partiers in trying to abolish Obamacare.
It is interesting that both extremes of the political spectrum seem to share a lot of common ground, in seeing life and politics very simplistically, good vs evil, “either you’re with us or against us”, hate for the “evildoers”, etc. It’s really not so simple, Susan.
It seems like the right vilifies Obama as an evil communist demon, and the left as an evil capitalist demon.
In fact, he’s a human being, not a demon. (The demonization which has become so prevalent in modern American politics is not good at all.)
He has an incredibly difficult job. (I sure wouldn’t want to be in his shoes. Would you?) And besides the talk of the US president being the most powerful person in the world, he doesn’t really have that much power–as he has to work with congress, the supreme court, etc. And the Republicans in Congress have from day one taken the position that they would oppose everything he does, no matter what, trying to stop him from accomplishing anything. IAnd despite that some would deny this, there has been much racism in the opposition as well.) Having passed a healthcare reform bill, which previous presidents (like Clinton) tried and were unable to pass, in the face of such massive opposition, was really his major accomplishment. (But yes, many compromises had to be made, or it would not have passed at all. Politics is all about compromise.) (Although compromise is something else that seems to be hated by extremists of both sides, demanding ideological purity.)
Obama has also been very disappointing to many of us on many levels, especially to us teachers in the area of education. I would say his overall record is quite mixed.
But that doesn’t make him an evil demon who “only cares about billionaires and corporations, not about people”.
My first choice in the Democratic primary in 2008 was Hillary Clinton, and I think she may well have been a better President than Obama these last eight years. Silly to speculate on that though. I think she very well may be the next President in 2016 though, so as i wrote earlier, I think it is important that we get to her (if we can) and educate her about education, before the “rheeformers” get to her.
The little problems with switching from teachers and books to technology in schools. If you want to be able to control costs going forward, it doesn’t look like technology is the way to go. Once the iPad breaks, it does nothing. Once your software license expires, you have nothing. At least out-of-date books can still be read and teachers can still think and fill in the gaps.
Agree
They are again Racing to the Test….and to there Political Aspirations without any regards to the chaos that they have created……
Just like the CCSS was THROWN at all of the grade levels instead of being transitioned form Grade 1…..they have again used the children as Guinea Pigs and have again Failed miserably..by using this money for all of these Ipads….
Happening all over this country..
Why do they not start from Ground and work their way up?
1st…Put ipads in all of the classrooms…but do not allow students to take them home….
2nd..Use the Ipads as you would use any other resource..not as the end all
I am sure there will be a day when every student will have access to an ipad at home..but sadly that day is not today..
For the CCSS supporters..Not one teacher degrades the standards..it is the way they were implemented and the emphasis on ‘One Size Fits All Testing Nightmare” that is so NOT WORKING..
Individualization is out of the equation……
.
“I am sure there will be a day when every student will have access to an ipad at home…”
I’m not!!
And I am sure that an ipad in every home will not be the solution to, won’t even be a help for, the entrenched public education problems resulting from inequitable distribution of resources.
Dear Duane:
WHY should resources be distributed equitably? That they are not is evident. On what basis do you justify taking resources (tax money) from people who have it and giving it to people who do not? What is the social theory upon which such an assumption is based? Piracy?
The social theory is obviously commie pinko faggotism, HU. Haven’t you heard of it?
Seriously, Duane. Communist, maybe. But what is the argument in support of that position?
Don’t know don’t subscribe to total state control.
I think a good description of my “free thinking ways” is Critical Enquiry, developed by the two gentleman who were my doctoral advisors (when I had funding and even after they allowed me to participate in the group discussions) Dr. Charles Fazzaro and Dr. Jim Walther at the University of MO-St. Louis-great folk both of them!!!
What is Critical Enquiry?
The capital “C” in Critical emphasizes social criticism at the most fundamental level of what ought to constitute an ideal just social structure. Enquiry emphasizes the self-conscious use of all forms of analysis and interpretation of actions and discourses that create, maintain, and justify social structures. To this end:
• Critical Enquiry is suspicious of al “isms” [and/or ideologies] offered as The ideal social structure because like all “isms” they purport to transcend human subjectivity, that they are constituted in nature, outside the boundaries of human consciousness.
• Critical Enquiry fully recognizes the political nature of social structures, and seeks to reveal the power embedded in all forms of historically contextualized discourses to condition popular thought to accept a particular ideology, an “ism,” as natural and inevitable. Of particular concern are those “isms” that attempt to justify socioeconomic power differentials as inevitable, as normal.
• Critical Enquiry works dialectically in an unremitting search for contradictions between existing social arrangements and the Enlightenment ideals of natural rights, such as those embodied in the Founding Documents of the United States.
• Critical Enquiry is particularly concerned with those contradictions which systematically exclude individuals and groups from sociopolitical power or from the free access to information that is used to both condition and justify the status quo.
• Critical Enquiry is based on the belief that emancipation comes only to individuals that increase their understanding and self-reflective analysis of their social conditions. Such an analysis depends on the free and open exchange of knowledge and information uncontaminated by authoritative privilege and sanctions. Only after meeting these conditions regarding knowledge can citizens in a democratic society be sufficiently prepared to make ethical and moral judgments. (emphasis in original)
Sounds good to me, Duane, as a method, if a bit abstract. What are your conclusions and why do you hold them? I too revere the founding documents, but see violation of them, in particular the constitution, everywhere. Free flow of information is also a desideratum. Can you reduce the high sounding rhetoric to a specific ideal so I can look for contradictions within it. It sounds to me as if your revered professors are spinning a web of collectivism. I see the fundamental value embodied in the Constitution as maximum freedom for the individual. In society today, and in your philosophy I see a lot of compulsion.
HU,
I’m not sure about what you’re asking with “What are your conclusions and why do you hold them?”
What conclusions in reference to what should I address?
Perhaps a start with “what ought to constitute an ideal just social structure”.
That is one of the most fundamental questions to vex society. I have a good number of very conservative/libertarian friends-folks I’ve known since knee to a grasshopper, quite successful businessmen and women, with whom I discuss this fairly often. Needless to say we have many disagreements. And I can say I’m not exactly sure what constitutes “an ideal just social structure”. But I think one way to avoid that “one overarching” narrative (which Critical Enquiry would look at with jaded eyes) of that structure is to do what Wilson suggests in the study I constantly reference and that is to “attempt to decrease the amount of injustice” and not to “increase just social practices” since most cannot agree to what constitutes such but usually can come to more of an agreement about what an “injustice” is. Maybe I am wrong but that seems a wise course of action.
What I see with Critical Enquiry is an “attitude”, a manner of being in looking around and identifying unjust social structures and practices. And to be able to demonstrate the contradictions in logic, thinking and conclusions that are involved in such generally accepted unjust practices, i.e., for me educational standards, standardized testing and the grading of students.
Part of that, taking for granted those practices, which I’ve been harping on lately is the “cultural habitus” that no one questions in regards to what we do in education. The vast majority accepts grades, testing, etc. . . without thinking twice about them. Well, Critical Enquiry thinks not only twice but many multiple times on these assumed okay social structures and practices and the negative effects they can have on many an innocent and how that contradicts/contravenes the intentions of the founders of this country and the Bill of Rights.
“I see the fundamental value embodied in the Constitution as maximum freedom for the individual.” I too see that but at the same time I argue that no man is “an island unto himself” (contrary to Simon and Garfunkel) and by nature we are social beings. And then how does one protect all human’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, when some are more than willing to stomp on others as to prevent them would be a “blow against his/her freedom”. Age old problems, eh HU!!
“. . . in your philosophy I see a lot of compulsion.”
Please show me where I advocate for “a lot of compulsion” because I believe I do just the opposite. Link to the offending statements or copy and paste so that I may see where I have done so!
The age old question is indeed what is an ideal society, or what is a just society. We might also inquire what is the society envisioned by the constitution. We might just look at one of the big documents: Plato’s Republic. What do you think of his recipe for a well ordered, ideal society?
When you say no man is an island, I wonder what that metaphor means in practice. I agree we are social beings. What is the main threat within a society? Is the main threat one person stomping on another? What does “stomp on” mean?
It seems to me there are two kinds of rights. One requires that other people refrain from messing with me. It costs them nothing not to hit me in the face, not to try to knock me out with one blow. There are other things often called rights which require from someone else, not a costless restraint, but an actual contribution of one’s work (i.e. money). Any time we empower the government to exact a contribution from someone with the threat of force (e.g. IRS), it seems to me we should be very careful that that duty we are forced to perform for another is really necessary to that person’s life and well being. Does this premise, of the two kinds of duty, seem acceptable to you? That some duties only require letting other people alone, and that other duties require you to put your work at their service.
HU,
I have no “social theory” on which to base my common sense statement that there are inequities in the distribution of resources used to educate this country’s children.
Do you drive? Do you fly? Do you drink clean water and breathe clean air? We all pay for those things via government. So you also must be a pirate unless you don’t pay your share to ensure those things and would then be considered a leech on the body of society. You’re simplistic thinking on “gubmint” vs the vaunted “individual” belies your intellectual capabilities.
Excuse me, Harlan, but at 49, I pay taxes that feed your social security payments. . . the ones that you take and live off of. My payments pay for seniors presently living now. My income tax is being redistributed to pay for, in part, your means.
I would not have it any other way. . . in fact we should all be taxed above and beyond $113K to increase and widena nd strengthen sopcial security.
So who are you to refer to redistribution as piracy?
A-hoy, mate . . . . .
Robert:
If Harlan is like me, then your taxes are certainly not paying for my social security. Actuarially, you might be correct if and only if I and Harlan live beyond the average life expectancy and even then it depends on whether Harlan’s benefits are above the actuarial value of his contributions. Of course, as the trust funds are reduced all bets are off.
Very true. It seems that they don’t think all this out, but are just rushing headlong into a fad, egged on by the tech companies, and by a very naive mindset (likely by folks who really don’t know much about technology) of tech as a magic bullet to “transform education”, “bring education into the 21st century”, etc., nice-sounding slogans that don’t really mean anything. (And one really wonders in LA, about some district officials running into a sweetheart deal to benefit their pocketbooks? I really wish someone would thoroughly investigate that.)
There are costs that have not even been mentioned anywhere. Does doing homework on these devices require Internet access? What about families that don’t have it? Will the district tell them they have to get it, even if they barely have enough money to pay rent and buy food? Or is the district prepared to pay monthly for Internet access for every family in LA, forever into perpetuity? Has that cost been considered?
What about when the bond money runs out, and the voters refuse to approve more bonds, due to this Ipad debacle?
Despite his fervent claims to the contrary, Deasy’s stronger loyalties are to people and organizations OUTSIDE his school district.
His graduation from the Eli Broad Academy is directly connected to his walk-in appointment as LAUSD Superintendent. Isn’t Broad paying part or all of his salary? That speaks for itself.
Last year Deasy rejected an improvement plan for 24th St. Elementary that had been previously been OK’d by a review panel. A month later, under the “guidance” of Ben Austin and Parent Revolution, parents at 24th St. handed in petitions that begin the school’s conversion. Seventeen new teachers on a staff of 21 were hired by an LAUSD-led committee, and grades 5-8 were placed in the hands of charter Crown Prep Academy. Grades K-4 went to Deasy and LAUSD. It’s not a stretch to entertain the notion that Deasy and Austin collaborated to ensure that 24th Street became the poster child establishing Parent Revolution’s credibility in Los Angeles.
Now we’re staring into the teeth of Deasy’s iPad boondoggle which gives away millions of dollars to Apple and Pearson Education, Inc. The fact that Deasy helped promote Apple in a commercial prior to this deal should raise a red flag, particularly for several of the school board members who have so energetically supported it. And Deasy’s departing Curriculum chief, Jaime Aquino, worked at Pearson before coming to LAUSD. How coincidental that the iPads in question have been loaded with Pearson software.
This is the real hypocrisy of John Deasy. Speak out at public forums and board meetings about the civil rights of students and the need to include parents in moving LA’s schools forward. Then work behind closed doors to funnel large sums of money to corporations exploiting the educational market.
At this stage, the debate should no longer be about whether students should get iPads or laptops, whether LAUSD did its homework before committing to the plan, or whether it’s legal for it to use school construction funds to purchase technology. Rather it should focus on what is the most expedient procedure to rid the district of the corporate shills who threaten its financial survival.
@Zorro.. perhaps the focus should now be on how Deasy broke the law so that his departure will be forced when he must go to jail!
Read these California code sections and see for yourself some of the laws that he seems to have broken.
EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 44930-44988
Ratliff is doing a great deal to mitigate ipad damage, trying to pull us out of a tail spin, but chances are Deasy has left great gaps in the budget she will not see until some new nightmare hops out to take us all by surprise; as someone astutely noted, destroying the district is what this is ultimately about. Eli Broad has his heart set on taking over LAUSD, which is, according to BOE member Steve Zimmer, a fortune 500 company. How is that even possible? Broad pretty much has control of the cities art and music, and his influence on development downtown, local politics and more is kinda scary. Bankrupting cities and usurping communities is an agenda these plutocrats are ultimately working, and it is hard to say who knows what. There is a glut of Broadies without a shred of shame installed n the nation’s large urban school systems who are caught up in scandal. They cheat, they steal and they lie in ways that cause others great harm. Most get away with that because they have unfortunate professional indemity and Broad’s lawyers are hip to all the ways around accountability, which is why he pays for his graduate’s defense. Hard to fathom the Atlant cheif beating charges principals and teachers couldnt even though they commited the crimes to keep their careers.
I am not very knowledgable about economics or business, but it seems to me that there is an underlying compulsion at work here. Bankrupting Detroit by enslaving schools with obscene expense and liability of this common core through the DOE and doofus Duncan is cunning, perhaps even cut throat, but it will not work out the way the BBC believes it will. I am certain they speak of this stuff in broad benevolent terms, bamboozling themselves and each other with subtle elitism and smug certainty they know what is best for us, the lowly masses. But where they recruit the thuggery? How? “Looking for personality disorders for a fun, financially rewarding career in disruption, destruction and daring diabolical deeds. Must be quick witted without a concious. ”
If you consider Deasy’s comportment, there is an arrogance that suggests he actually buys into the lies he spews , even buys into PR fluff about his numinous but stern leadership. He may bend the rules but heroes do that. He is sorta like the dirty Harry of education, wiping out scumbag teachers and issuing dry wise cracks. In his own mind…A most perplexing character. I suspect Deasy’s flaws may be what won the favor of puppetmasters like Gates and Broad. A very bright and ethical administrator who met him noted Deasy may be autistic. It makes sense too, but it can mean a lot of things, and it is probaly not the case. Deasy may be some sort of savant. He is mercurial,unpredictable, a bully with the sooul of a drama queen . What gets me most though is how much he loathes teachers. His bio may be fabricated since it has come together slowly in scraps of information that suggest they are rewriting history or faking credentials
You know, I cannot see Deasy teaching, but his parents probably are teachers as it says in the sanitized script. If so, what sort of grudge does he carry? For some reason this man makes me think of that movie Manchiarian Canidate with Lawrence Harvey .
Wow…a steamroller to the trough.
Thank you Zorro for your further clarification, and for the clear reminder to our cyber group, of the Parent Revolution aspect brought to LAUSD by Ben Austin with the financing of the Waltons, Broad (who trained both Deasy and Aquino), Gates, and others of vast wealth who wish to break the backs of unions and who prefer using low paid, minimally trained, TFA students rather then highly trained professional educators to teach inner city children. Some of these corporate donors also self identify as Dems.
Sadly, over the past year the LA Times chose to proffer long lauding articles on this incursion of ‘rigged’ charters by parent demand, or parent intimidation and confusion, as to the parent trigger results.
And today we read that even Malibu HS, a part of the Santa Monica school system, has high toxic levels…so this burgeoning health problem for students and teachers is not only part of LAUSD which has thrown endless good money after bad in similar terrible choices to deal with toxic school sites.
How can we get well-informed community activists who are dedicated to public good rather than corporate direction, to run for School Board? How can We the People who pay everyone involved, be the true partner in running public schools?
You need to consider that no one can represent the public good. Individuals can only speak for themselves. “The People” does not even exist, so “they” cannot “partner” with anything. “The People” is only a phrase, a matter of airy words. If you could purge your minds of believing in entities such as “The People” you might be able to make progress. Only individuals actually exist.
As usual Harlan…you represent the wild ones…the Tea Party know nothings…the gun toters of America who neither understand nor believe in the founding principles of our country, a democratic republic, which is based on the community of “We, the People”….so I suggest you bone up on our history and the documents that set us on a unique course which most of us wish to uphold and preserve.
Woof:
“We, the People” is a pure rhetorical device and refers to a distinct subset of the population at the time and the issue of how well they actually represented all the people remains much in debate. Indeed one might argue that Harlan’s point is exactly appropriate to the context here. Tom, John et al certainly represented some but hardly more than a minority of those they claimed to represent.
Ellen: I would say that it is YOU who do not understand your fundamental concept of the people and of the motives of the founding fathers. I believe their motive was to protect the individual FROM government rather than to establish a national service agency. The government doesn’t give you your rights. The government protects your individual, inalienable rights. The public schools in the way past were SO local and SO under individual control that the benefits were judged to be individual, whereas now, with more and more federal intrusion into education, NCLB, and RTTT, and CCSS, that government is pushing people around rather than supplying them with individual benefits.
Even state governments can be oppressive, but at least there it is a little easier to implement charters and vouchers rather than monopoly state education. You say, probably, “Power to the People”(a socialist, communist phrase which means only power to the demagogues who seek power as the leaders of mobs, think Chavez of Venezuela, and his successor, or Lenin, or Stalin, or dare I say it, Hitler, or in modern times even President Obama), but I say Power to the Individual against all oppressive government.
In my view the Democrat party has become the British, for freedom from which the original colonies fought. I don’t think a violent revolution NOW is necessary. There are peaceful and legal ways to control Democrat tyranny, but it will require a significantly greater coalescing of individuals than is presently existent in order to win elections and ratify amendments to curb their power.
Harlan:
You make a good point. I too am suspicious when amorphous and anthropomorphized collective nouns are used.
Bernie…in reading American history, the works of Professor Nash who is emeritus at UCLA, are notable. We learn that the “rabble”…the “People”…were the ones who formed the local committees that so influenced the founders and the writers such as Tom and John, that their ideas were such (particularly Roger Coram on universal education) that they were made prominent as We, the People.
Harlan, my cynical side agrees with you. Corporate interests do seem to elect our representatives. But every once in awhile, there’s an anomaly. Monica Ratliff defied the rule when a majority of voters elected her despite the huge financial advantage of her opponent. Board member Steve Zimmer did the same.
To quote Howard Beale in Network: “. . . it’s the individual that’s finished. It’s the single, solitary human being that’s finished; it’s every single one of you out there that’s finished. Because this is no longer a nation of independent individuals, it’s a nation of two-hundred some-odd million transistorized, deodorized, whiter-that-white steel-belted bodies, totally unnecessary as human beings, and as replaceable as piston rods.”
If we’re going to place our hope in individuals, we have to make sure they’re not pulverized by the billionaire boys’ club. And it will take more than one person to do that. It will take a lot of people.
This sounds like a riff on Margaret Thatcher’s infamous quote, “There is no such thing as society.” It’s the rallying cry for those who want to plunder, steal from the public and make a God of their selfishness. In light of all the damage this philosophy has caused, I’m genuinely shocked that its adherents are still willing to show their face in public.
Dear “bluewombat”: I notice you do not care to refute the claim with an argument, but your association of it with Mrs. Thatcher actually does me immense credit in my own eyes. That philosophy has been largely ignored, and people such as yourself say it is outmoded and passe, but considering the damage collectivism is doing to the world and under President Obama and the Democrats to our own country, I am hoping for a revival of a truer vision of “society” than one based on the I would have thought thoroughly discredited philosophy of the “volk” or as you might put it “the people.” There is no “people” or “volk.” There is only a collection of individuals with the same language, borders, and culture. We must always ask about a policy supposedly good for “the people” or “democracy” what its impact is on individuals. How many policies supposedly adopted as social goods or good for “the people” are actually destructive of individual happiness and welfare is practically uncountable in human history. Likewise, today. If we adopt a test of what is good for the individual, I do not think we can exclude taxpayer subsidies to individuals for education, but only to individuals, not to school districts. Thus, charters are NOT to be dismissed, nor even vouchers. The ONLY legitimate judge of the benefit is the individual using them or taking advantage of them, not the public school teachers, not Diane Ravitch, nor anyone else. That is the original American Way, rather than what is called that today. We can see what absurdities happen when the money is given to school districts such as the LAUSD rather than to the individual impoverished parents to sustain their own school choices. Thus I see the reformers, the Bushes, the Arne Duncans, and all promotors of the CCSS as being on the exact same side as Diane Ravitch and the opponents of the CCSS They all think in terms of the “system” rather than the individual. Margaret Thatcher’s thought is as relevant to us today as it was to her own time, and Ronald Reagan’s too.
Harlan, because of your lack of knowledge of who “We the People” were, and how this “historical rabble” led the founders to use this term, you lose credibility. I told you, read UCLA professor Nash, one of the major historians of American history of our time. He really is smarter than Shawn Hannity.
And now you put words in my mouth, much as Senator McCarthy and HUAC did with other vocal citizens, and you use “power to the people” as a Marxist slur that you accuse me of uttering although I never did.
And again, you are wrong!
We, the People, are the citizens, the voters, who elect legislators and School Board members. As such, we are the ultimate power behind the actions of the elected.
At least that was the intent of the Law of the Land. Unfortunately, with the imposition of the most activist SCOTUS (5 of whom, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Rogers, and even Kennedy, you must kneel down to) we now are ruled by their imposed Citizens United edict, and the corporations who buy the elected. Sometimes we get lucky and have an off year election that allows us to vote in someone like Monica Ratliff.
You really need to get out more often and see what the real world is about. Watching so much of Fox Pseudo News seems to cloud your brain.
Ellen
You have it so wrong, Ellen, that all you can do is cast liberal slurs on me. If Nash makes sense, then teach it to me. If you can’t teach it, you don’t know it. If you won’t teach it, then it seems to me you probably don’t understand it. I repeat, “the people” is a bad CONCEPT which will not hold up under critical analysis. If you choose to think with bad concepts, of course you won’t reach realistic conclusions. Don’t attack me as a person. You know that’s a fallacy. Ad hominem. Rather show me the entity to which the term “the people” actually points, its denotation.
You assume it points to an actual entity, but you do not show that it does. I claim that “the people” is a word used by demagogues who want power and try to achieve that power by appealing to a myth that the ignorant hold about themselves as members of a tribe or group. It’s like talking about “Christians” or “Jews” or “Muslims,” or “women” or “men” or “the poor,” or “African Americans,” or “Native Americans.” Those entities simply do not exist. They are words which purport to name real classes but do not. False epistemology is at the root of so much tyranny. People make love to their own slavery through words. Most of critical thinking comes down to realizing that words are not (usually or ever) the things. There are ONLY individuals with their voluntary political associations.
Gary Nash is indeed an eminent historian. His view, however, is decidedly partisan and other historians have taken significant issue with his views as to the nature of those who opposed British Rule – notably another eminent historian Gordon Wood. It is also well to remember that the colonist were very much divided on the need to displace British Rule.
Everyone in LA should know by now that Gates, Walton, and Broad control LAUSD. They answer to no one because they own everything and everybody, especially John Deasy and Arne Duncan. Google image Eli Broad and a young Duncan, and you’ll understand why people in the know say that Arne is just Eli Broad’s biotch.
typically emotional evidence worth nothing. They agree in ideology, not because they look alike. This is called judging a book by its cover.
The picture being referred to is, I believe, this one:
http://gothamschools.org/2009/03/11/eli-broad-describes-close-ties-to-klein-weingarten-duncan/
It’s not that they look alike, it’s the general message one gets from looking at the posture, expressions, and apparent dynamics in the shot. Duncan is Broad’s sycophant.
There is a need to clarify the use of construction bond funds. There is language included for technology updating. I will guess that if money was spent to increase and update on site computers and labs, this whole mess would never have happened. LAUSD claims that they can purchase iPads because they were invented after the public voted. However, there are several issues that are being investigated. First, can LAUSD spend bond money on something that is not a permanent fixture? Second, did LAUSD imbed the cost of curriculum to hide the fact that the cost of the iPad was below a required $500 threshold? Third, since curriculum is definitely not bond fundable, did LAUSD skirt the law by imbedding it in the total price of the iPad? Fourth, it appears that LAUSD connived to hide certain costs such as keyboards, purchasing new curriculum in three years, forgetting to include tax when it quoted total costs, forgetting to include iPads for co-located and conversion charters, and completely avoiding the issue of no plan for financially sustaining this project beyond the three years.
So, pick any of the above, as each one should be enough to sink this project and send Deasy packing.
While Deasy has tried to make this a civil rights issue, he ignores that the tax payers and voters of this city were very supportive of these bonds. It is no secret that LAUSD has about 80% of its students considered in poverty, so PLEASE do not tell us that we don’t care about these students. What we do care about is that whatever money is spent be done in the most careful and fiscally responsible way. Otherwise, LAUSD will find itself having to devote more and more of its general fund to replace iPads that are lost and become obsolete and to hire more and more staff to deal with problems relating to technology and teacher preparation. What will LAUSD cut to pay for all this? I’ll give you ONE GUESS!!!!
Educator: one of the best ways to destroy public education—not just physically but even the very idea of it—is to put people people like John Deasy in charge.
Enthusiastic ignorance, casual immorality, stunning incompetence, ruinous people skills—put folks like that in charge of implementing a series of plans that bring discredit to the very institution they are publicly proclaimed as serving—
And you have catastrophes like the iPad fiasco. Since it is all done in the name of “public education” and not in its true name of “education reform,” it will have achieved both of its main goals: make public education infamous and generate lots and lots of $tudent $ucce$$ [for the ‘right’ sort of people].
It is immaterial if the people put up to it are conscious or not of how they are applying a wrecking ball to public education. As other commenters have said about those leading the charterite/privatizer movement like Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, they are studiously indifferent to the toxic effects of the policies for which they are personally responsible. Hasty thoughtlessness is their hallmark, not searching self-reflection.
Regrets are [thank you, Leona Helmsley!] for the “little people.”
Any doubt should be removed by Duncan’s speech to the annual meeting of the 2013 American Educational Research Association. Famously citing—and deeply misunderstanding—Campbell’s Law, he firmly stood for, against, and somewhat for/somewhat against high-stakes standardized testing. With the proviso, dontcha know, that he was displeased that his audience (which included some of his fiercest critics on the uses and abuses of said testing) still hadn’t gotten the hazy ritual right. He confessed to almost bursting into tears over the whole mess…
😕
Link: http://www.ed.gov//news/speeches/choosing-right-battles-remarks-and-conversation
Where’s Hercules when we need someone to clean out these Aegean EduStables?
😎
Ah so..TA…Herekles was empowered by his Papa Zeus, and mortivated by his sis Athena who popped out their father’s head, and so he could crush snakes and the lion, but you will recall he went bananas doing all this. When he sailed with his nephew, the poet and singer Orpheus who calmed the sirens, and with Jason on the Argonaut (even then searching for gold), Herekles had to be put off on an island to keep him from injuring himself and others.
Would that we could put various of these defacaters from the stables of greed off on at least Catalina Island where the goats could feed on them….before we all go bananas.
I have just learned that Oakland Unified will be purchasing Chromebooks and wireless carts for every school. This will no doubt become the testing cart. I wonder how long it will take before every school in Oakland is burglarized? Why do we need name brand computers? Why are we purchasing lap tops when desktops make far more sense? I am deeply disturbed by this. Oakland students do need computers, but they do not need Chromebooks or Ipads. They also need dentists, reliable food sources, and safe homes. Why are we not spending money on that?
Well chromebooks at $200 each, which have keyboards attached, certainly make more sense than the LAUSD Ipads at $800 each, for which they have to buy separate keyboards! (Something extremely fishy about the LA deal, costing the district billions.)
I don’t know why desktops make more sense, far less portable. In any case, don’t most schools already have desktop computers? Something schools already have won’t fit with the fad of buying a new shiny magic pill to “fix education”.
That whole new fad that tech will “transform education” (and more important than hiring sufficient teachers and support staff, fixing buildings, etc.) is totally wrongheaded!
Great Post!!
Come forward in LA with a Qui Tam lawsuit. It’s about the misuse of tax funds and the related harmful impact on education. Whistleblowers: be strong and speak!
No one has discussed the technology fetishism that infects many Americans’ minds. Tech = good. Our Northern California district has a bundle of new money earmarked for Common Core implementation. We’re not allowed to use it for new teachers, but we ARE allowed to use it for tech. Frankly none of us really know what to do with the money (professional development? Oy. More blind leading the blind. More inane Common Core bootcamps with charlatan presenters?). In this intellectual vacuum, a principal proposed buying laptops for all our kids. “Buy tech” has become the go-to answer to everything that ails schools. Is there a single study that shows that buying laptops is good? In Peru, laptops were a failure. In inner city Oakland, laptops led to DIMINISHED achievement. Amanda Ripley’s new book highlights the fact that high-achieving systems abroad have conspicuously LESS tech than American schools.
Interesting info. What is the name of the Ripley book? Also, do you have links to the Oakland and Peru info?
Thanks.
The Ripley book is called The Smartest Kids in the World.
On the Peru laptop flop: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2012/08/22/no-shock-as-perus-one-to-one-laptops-miss-mark/
On the Oakland laptop flop: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/us/new-digital-divide-seen-in-wasting-time-online.html?pagewanted=2
On the flop of educational technology in general: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-in-schools-faces-questions-on-value.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Thanks for the info, Ponderosa. I will check out the links. Interesting info.
Good Info Ponderosa…
I so agree
That is an excellent article, from an LA Times business reporter. I am glad that the LA Times has published a critical article again, after they seemed to have caved in to the massive PR campaign by special interests a few weeks ago with the Deasy “Halloween Surprise”
I just sent an e-mail to that reporter, thanking him for that article, and suggesting some further investigation. I don’t know if he will read it (reporters likely get more e-mail than they can read), but I tried. I will paste in my e-mail below.
——————–
Hello Mr. Hiltzik,
Excellent article by you about the LAUSD Ipad Fiasco.
I am an LAUSD teacher, very proficient in technology, and use it in teaching more than most. But it is just a tool among others. The slogans about it “revolutionizing education” are no more than an ad campaign from technology companies.
I don’t know if you read the excellent op-ed in the Times by LAUSD teacher Jeff Lantos about the Ipad thing. If not, I would suggest you read it. ( http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-lantos-tech-in-schools-los-angeles-20131025,0,612588.story#axzz2lWLbmYg8 )
It also needs to be clear that the district, in spite of extra money received from Proposition 30, is not rehiring teachers laid off a few years ago, class sizes are higher than ever, arts education has been cut, schools are in poor condition due to cuts in maintenance staff, lacking nurses, librarians, counselors, etc. LAUSD has not been investing in what it needs to to improve the schools, yet is spending billions on easily breakable, lost, stolen, and soon-to-be-obsolete gadgets.
While I agree with both Lantos and yourself that such a massive technology purchase is not necessary, what if we assume that it is necessary, but then look solely at the question—is the Ipad deal a good one? There have been questions about it in the media, but there really should be a thorough investigation by the school board, and perhaps even an investigation by the district attorney or city attorney’s office, as to me (and many others) it smacks of either massive stupidity and naïveté on the part of district officials, or a criminal sweetheart deal with public funds. That really needs to be investigated.
Android tablets are available at less than $100 apiece retail, especially the 7 inch size which would be more appropriate for children than the 10 inch size. Name brand Android tablets like Google Nexus and Samsung Galaxy are available for less than $200. Is there any reason that the educational software that the district wants couldn’t be written for Android instead of IOS? I couldn’t see why? Has anyone asked that of district officials? The fact that the Ipads have non-replaceable batteries makes them obsolete sooner than other brands, because when the battery goes bad, the whole device needs to be replaced. (Of course, that is why they are made that way.)
In Best Buy the other day I saw some kind of tablet made especially for children, which cost less than $200. (I forget the name.) I didn’t have time to really look at them, but they appeared to be very well padded to protect against breakage. Did the district even look at these?
And now, they say that they need keyboards too, and that those have to be purchased separately, still more devices that can be lost or broken. The question then arises—if a keyboard is needed, why a tablet? Why not a device with a keyboard attached? Netbooks (small and light, better size for students than full-size laptops), running a full version of Windows, are available for about $200-300. Chromebooks, running the new Google Chrome OS, are available for less than $200, made by name brands. Is there any reason that the educational software the district wants could not be written for Windows or Chrome? (Clearly Pearson has some kind of deal with Apple, but that doesn’t mean that the district has to buy into it.)
And even if one concluded (illogically) that the technology absolutely has to be ipads, how can the price the district is paying for these be justified, much higher than the price the most expensive type of ipads are sold retail, but supposedly with some kind of educational bulk discount??? And these LAUSD ipads are not like the most expensive kind of Ipads (which have 4G connectivity, 64GB memory, and the latest model). The district is buying an older model, wi-fi only, and I would assume the lowest amount of memory. (So the price should be compared with the lowest price older model Ipad, not the most expensive new one.)
The claim that these Ipads will be protected against theft is clearly nonsensical to anyone familiar with technology. Just as high school kids easily figured out how to disable the LAUSD locks on certain features, criminal gangs will have no trouble figuring out how to jailbreak these Ipads, remove the LAUSD content, make them like retail Ipads, and sell them on Ebay Craigslist, and elsewhere. Children walking home from school will be sitting ducks for assault by gangsters, who will set up an organized operation to steal and repurpose the LAUSD Ipads.
There really needs to be a thorough investigation of the monetary aspects of this deal. Was there really competitive bidding involved? Is there a record of that bidding? Did they look at technology other than Ipads? If not, why be stuck with the highly-priced product of one company, without considering others? Did they really look at software developers other than Pearson, and try to negotiate the best price? They should be required to provide details, of everything they looked at, the prices they were quoted by bidders, and how they came to the deal that was made?
Does using these Ipads to do homework require Internet access? What about families that don’t have it? How is that “bridging the digital divide”?. Will LAUSD now provide home internet access to all LAUSD families—forever? At what cost?
I don’t know if reporters like yourself and others could investigate and perhaps find out information about the deal which has not yet been discovered? Of course that would mean asking questions of district officials. Still better, if you could find one or more “deep throat” among LAUSD staff, Apple, and/or Pearson, who could tell you something about the deal that district officials will not publicly disclose (with confidentially for the source, of course).
I would hope that you could do so, as the public has the right to know, how billions of dollars of its tax money is being spent, and why? If a criminal sweetheart deal is discovered, misuse of public funds for corruption, that information should be provided to the authorities.
Another question—is that even an appropriate use of school bond money, that taxpayers voted for replacement and repair of crumbling inadequate school buildings, to spend it instead on shiny gadgets that will soon be lost, broken, stolen, and obsolete? (Perhaps the Times would like to do an online survey, to see if taxpayers consider that an appropriate use of school bond funds?)
Thanks again for the article.
“didn’t even give me no, shred of doubt, they sold me out” -Van Morrison
http://edsource.org/today/wp-content/uploads/national-and-state-organizations-respond-to-elimination-of-public-tran
Could someone help me understand this? There are student-advocated groups upset that CA is taking fewer tests? The groups mentioned here support the federal sanctions….I must be missing something big here. Also, the claim is that not taking the tests could affect things like a student in special education moving back into the general classroom. I am a special education teacher in a Tennessee. We do not rely on high-stakes standardized testing to inform decisions about social Ed services or settings.
I’d appreciate it if someone could shed some light on this for me. Thanks in advance!
Bookworm- The issue you bring up looks interesting, but it has nothing to do with the issue of this thread, the LAUSD Ipad fiasco. If people started responding to your question in this thread, it would completely change the thread to a different issue. I will not respond to your completely off-topic question here, and would suggest that others do not,, so the thread does not change to a completely different issue than Diane’s original post.
However, Diane may wish (if she reads it) to move your post above to a new thread about that issue.
Sorry, Mike–you’re right. Off thread, but I answered it before I read your comment. Sigh–once a sped. advocate, always a sp.ed. advocate.
Mike, thanks…I’m new to thus format. What would you suggest I do in the future to bring an issue or question up on this blog, if there are no current conversations on the topic.
Good question, Bookworm. I’m not sure myself. On most online forums there is a way to start a new discussion, but I have not noticed that here. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong.) It seems that here most discussions are begun with a blog post by Diane Ravitch (although she is sometimes posting a message that a reader sent her), and then one can comment on that. Like this thread began with a post by Diane about the new LA Times Ipad article.
I guess one could write to Diane and suggest a new discussion you would like to start. (Diane, if reading this, perhaps you could comment on what readers can do to begin a discussion topic here?)
In any case, don’t feel too bad about going off topic here, Bookworm. Perhaps I was too harsh. After reading and writing more to this thread today, I see that going off topic is very common here. In fact, I have been guilty of it myself today. Harlan the tea party guy started ranting about Obamacare, and I wrote back and argued with him, which only perpetuated that very off-topic topic. I think that if you read this whole thread, you will see much that is not about the LAUSD Ipad issue. So don’t feel too bad about it.
It would be good to know what the protocol is, if one wants to start a new discussion?
Bookworm–I read the signatures on this response–these people are supporters of school reform–Ben Austin, Kati Haycock, someone from Teach Plus, Parent Revolution, etc. And, as a retired L.D. Teacher, I might add—I am personally offended by the oppositional stance taken by the National Council on Learning Disabilities (precisely why I am NOT a member).*They’re the usual crowd clamoring that our public schools are bad, we need more accountability (i.e., testing), schools are bad because teachers are poor (Teach Plus), Parent Revolution (choice=privatization & charter schools). This is everything Diane has been writing about in Reign of Error–NOT in the best interests of children, and especially not sp.ed. kids. Hope this clarifies things for you, and hope your school district continues to “not rely on high-stakes standardized testing to inform decisions about social Ed services or settings.”
That’s the way it should be.
*Furthermore, as a member of the Council for Exceptional Children and an intermittent member of the Learning Disabilities Assn. and IBIDA, I would encourage these organizations to take a stronger stand AGAINST “standardized” (in quotes because it has been proven to be neither valid nor reliable, thus, in reality, NOT standardized) testing. Decisions as to whether or not sp.ed. students take such tests should ONLY be made in a child’s I.E.P. meeting by the I.E.P. Team (with PARENTS as team members!).
This may be my 3rd time repeating my belief about testing students who have IEPs. IDEA specifically states that students receive free and appropriate education. The instruction and testing that they are receiving sure seems to be out of compliance with IDEA.
I totally agree with you and this isn’t a very informed answer, but my guess is that all these testing regulations are worded just so, as to make what is happen seem to fall under the guidelines of IDEA.
I appreciate your explanation, thanks so much. Since I’m fairly new here and since this blog is my first experience with commenting, threads, etc….it looks like I used improper etiquette. In the future, what would be the best way to ask something like this if there isn’t a current conversation going?
iPads are unreliable for testing. I seen kids who had iPad accommodations take tests with them. The battery failed during the tests. Someone had to make sure their apps were deleted. They had to be constantly monitored in case of cheating. It is ridiculous. The teacher who insisted they have them felt embarrassed after I warned her it was not the best tool for the test. Her excuse was this was the wave of the future. There are teachers who are naive about what is going on partly because she worked at a high SES school. No need to worry about kids not passing the test there. Her school had never been in AYP.
Oh and the proctor had to make sure their answers were deleted after each test they used it for.
Once upon a time…
“$$$$ Man” decides to convince “Testing Man” that a Billion Dollars spent on Technology would increase the Common Core Standards Test Scores..
Testing Man was so excited that His SCORES would be higher than Other ‘s SCORES that he searched Deep in the Money Hat and decided that He would Borrow from the Dilapidated- Leaky-Roof Money Building-School Fund and be the First in the USA to “Blaze the I-Path Trail……….
Let us Race-Race-Race-Race-Race-Race———-to ….?????????????
Did anyone not learn from the “Tortoise and the Hare”?
Oh Aesop…..Where are you when we need you???
I return to a point that I feel keeps getting lost.
I would never minimize the malfeasance of every aspect of the iPad procurement, secret deployment, obfuscation-at-every-turn, design and cost flaws, corporate sponsorship and faulty implementations.
I just assume guilty as charged.
It’s the MORAL aspects of the philosophy of education behind the iPad which is the most infuriating and egregious.
There is a reason why some people feel that universal mandatory armed service conscription would be good for the country. That means everyone has skin in the game. As a pacifist I find merit in this argument.
There could be no more Dick Cheney’s who support wars as long as he doesn’t have to fight them (nor HIS kids). He could no longer claim “other priorities” when given the opportunity to back up his stated beliefs because he himself would actually have to do the dirty work he prescribes for others.
The moment the LA TIMES Editorial board of some of their columnists have kids in the LAUSD system, I just can’t believe they would say Deasy’s philosophy of education is acceptable. In fact, they would be the first to scream for other options and the paucity of imagination that dictates his decisions. I can guarantee that the schools and classes and options their kids enjoy is radically different from what is available to my kids.
It is well known that upon hiring new principals, Deasy gives them this directive: “Act first and ask for forgiveness later.” That dictum reflects his entire philosophy to education. It might as well be Dick Cheney’s entire political philosophy. There has NEVER yet been a time when Deasy has admitted a single error. In fact, he doubles down on everything he does. That is why the iPads are an “astonishing success” the same way “We will be treated as liberators” becomes a fact in his mind because HE SAYS SO.
It took a few years before the Iraq War was revealed as the fiasco but the damage was done and who knows when this country will ever recover. That’s what I fear will happen when “Education Reform” (yes, Mike, I agree that a new term is needed!) has been revealed for the destructive force it truly is. The very people who supported it, NEVER have to live with what they have wrought.
You will notice the Iraq war designers and cheerleaders STILL don’t admit the obvious and have gone on to even more lucrative positions of power and financial reward.
All critics of Deasy are labeled against Civil Rights or for “the status quo.” They live in this Alice in Wonderland world where these oppressors believe they are the liberators of my kids and want my kids to be GRATEFUL for the lousy conditions that they are forced to live under.
Be GRATEFUL for the tests! Be GRATEFUL for the scripted Pearson lessons! Be GRATEFUL for the iPads which you need much more than smaller classes, more electives, more field trips, more political power and voice in your own education….
The Democratic power base (not only in LA but obviously all across the country with their own version of John Deasy and Eli Broad) support these superintendents and educational philosophies AS LONG AS THEIR OWN KIDS don’t have to live under them.
You see, that’s why, even more important than all the other iPad issues that have been brought up time and time again, is the ugly CONTEMPT these people feel towards our kids. They are treated as merely cannon fodder. Like the Iraq War, our students are in their system for a “noble cause” where profiteers can gussy up their war implements (or educational wares in our case)that are sold to our districts. This money spent on the Education Machine actually HURTS our kids chances rather than helps.
If universal conscription in war was mandatory, there would be fewer wars and less profit in the war machinery and a more decent world because NO ONE would want to lose their kid to a lie. And if LA wants to believe Deasy’s pedagogy is good for their kids, then SEND YOUR KIDS to Deasy’s schools.
Remember, when the Iraq War began, only ONE member of Congress had a relative in the conflict.
You’re giving my kids an iPad to fight for their education.
Why do we feel so underequipped?
You don’ think they really believe that, do you? Deasy is a windbag dictator who couldn’t care less about anything except pushing the agenda of the billionaires he pimps for. The ipad fiasco is a money making scam, just like Belmont, BIC and charter schools. BIC food is donated by Walmart which is a huge tax write off for the biggest retailer in the world. Never mind that teachers have reported bugs and cockroaches in the food. Deasy just screams at anyone who dares to comment. Just like Chris Christie. This is the new American leadership.
Again, LAUSD teachers and supporters, read for yourself California code sections
EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 44930-44988
and see if you agree that malfeasance abounds as Geronimo suggests.
This iPod fiasco is the same stupid mentality that assumes you can fix complex problems by simply buying a new tool. This neoliberal consumerist mentality is so nearsighted that all it does is make a few corporations richer while making schools even more dependent and worse off.
A new (for me) interesting spin on the Ipad fiasco:
Look at the video of a recent LAUSD board meeting:
http://lausd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=111
At about 8 and a half minutes into the video, board member Monica Ratliff gives a short report on the Ipad issue. (Probably more on Ipads later in the meeting, but I have only seen a little.)
In that report at 8:30 (minutes into the video), she says that Pearson Corp. was asked to testify before her committee about their software.
Pearson refused to do so, stating that Apple Corp refused to let them do so. Then she read a letter from Apple stating that its policy is to not allow its employees nor employees of any subcontractor (such as Pearson) to testify in any public or televised meetings. Also, something about a “cone of silence” that was agreed to between LAUSD officials and Apple.
What??? We are talking about billions of dollars of taxpayers money. Doesn’t the public have a right to know about this deal? How can it be kept so secret, from those paying for it?
(And with all the secrecy, who knows what is happening with all of the money, especially with Deasy’s history?) (When he was superintendent of the Santa Monica-Malibu School District, he gave a grant (with district funds) of $375,000 to his mentor, Robert Felner (then at the University of Louisville, Kentucky) supposedly to do a survey on NCLB. (Expensive survey!!!) It was later found out that that money went directly to Felner’s personal bank account. Deasy was then granted a very easy PhD from that university, by Felner, without actually completing the requirements for one. Robert Felner is now in a federal prison cell in Montgomery, Alabama, serving a five year sentence for embezzlement. (He also had to pay back large sums of money to universities he head bilked.) One sure wishes that Felner had spilled the beans on Deasy, who most likely should be in the next cell. )
In any case, watch the video linked to above, at 8 minutes 30 seconds into the video, and hear Monica Ratliff read the astounding letter from Apple.
Welcome to our world Mike…glad to have remind us of these Deasy events. Many of us have been reporting on this for months but reminders are always good.
I missed that 8 minutes of the BofE you-tube with Ratliff commenting. Thank goodness for Ratliff who is leaning into all this. And you are so correct in wondering why we who pay the bills must bend to Apple and not get the info that we need while overpaying them by more than double for their already outdated IPads.
Makes one think of the huge frauds such as Enron, Qualcom, etc., where their leaders ended up in the Federal pen with long sentences.
Are you Mike who many of us know from LAUSD???? The one who has sent me/us emails about our joint angst re UTLA and the district?
Ellen Lubic
Ellen,
I am a teacher in LAUSD, but I think there are most likely lots of Mikes in LAUSD. I don’t think I have sent you an e-mail, as I don’t believe I have your e-mail address. I have sent e-mails to others about LAUSD issues, so it isn’t impossible that someone may have forwarded to you an e-mail from me.
K12 News Network is your site, correct? Good site. I like your writing there and here. And I agree with you about Monica Ratliff. I supported her and contributed to her campaign, and am glad I did. (I was also very mad at UTLA with their ridiculous “dual endorsement”, and I wrote more than once to the UTLA board and told them so.
You seem to havew felt that I criticized you earlier, by asking for the source of information, but that was not my intent at all. I simply wanted to verify whether that surprising information was correct or not, that’s all.
Mike,
Should you wish to reach me, you can email me at
joiningforces4ed@aol.com
We have many similar world views.
Ellen
Ellen (and others), the LA School Report was correct about the Deasy evaluation vote. (I never said the report was wrong, just wasn’t sure about its accuracy but now it certainly seems to be accurate.
The story appeared in the LA Times a couple days before the LA SR:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-deasy-evaluation-revealed-20131119,0,7414885.story#axzz2lllsFA2t
Is something true just because it appears in the Times? No, I never said that Ellen. However, appearing in two places, with one not a copy of the other, makes it more credible. Also, especially, the Times story says how that information, that was supposed to be secret, was made public, forced into the open. (And I would say that the Times, a major national newspaper, is more reliable than the LA School Report.)
The story tells us that Bennett Kayser is just as much a traitor as Steve Zimmer.
What should we do about those two turncoats?
Mike – why doesn’t this story get more play? I would think Diane would be all over this. This is serious embezzlement of public funds. How can this go unnoticed? Dr. ??? Deasy is a fraud.
Hi concerned–
Well, for one thing, I would not say something like “This is serious embezzlement of public funds” unless I had proof of that. Do you? That is a pretty serious charge.I have seen no such proof.
I would say, however, that various aspects of the deal look suspicions (and Deasy’s past makes one more apt to suspect it), and that I wish someone, such as the DAs office or the feds, would seriously investigate it. (They may be, but I haven’t heard anything about it.)
One wonders too about Jaime Aquino’s resignation, whether there was some graft or conflict of interest on his part about the deal (he had previously worked for Pearson), that he feared would be revealed, so he resigned first? (Or whether the board had discovered something, and forced him out? (I should perhaps clarify that this is speculation.) (We’ll see when he leaves LAUSD, whether he becomes a very high paid consultant for Apple or Pearson.)
I sure wish Deasy would follow him.
As Deasy with his billionaire-backed PR machine has seemed to have been successful in convincing the media, politicians, and civic leaders that he is the great savior of LA students. No one could dispel that myth better than the parents of those students. (Teachers don’t seem to be listened to, dismissed as “not wanting to be accountable”, etc.) If thousands of parents had demonstrated for a change in superintendent on October 29, I don’t think the board would have voted as they did. Is there anything you could do as a concerned parent to help educate and organize other LAUSD parents about the harm John Deasy is inflicting on the children of the district (not to mention the taxpayers)?
Speaking of the Deasy coup on October 29 (Halloween Surprise) (wouldn’t the guy be a scary figure in a Halloween haunted house?) , who has seen the following blog by Ben Austin in the Huffington Post (hold your nose before clicking):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-austin/community-power-saved-superintendent_b_4229655.html
Austin writes about how great “grassroots community action” by the “entire LA community” saved the great Superintendent John Deasy from “powerful special interests”.
It is so disgusting and dishonest one wants to puke.
At the end he gives a long list of organizations that supposedly supported that action. My guess is that he must have made up their involvement i(of most) n that action—that most had no connection with it whatsoever. (Those few that were were heavily funded by Gates, Broad, Walton, and the Charter Schools Association. Some grass roots!)
Readers may want to post comments there to refute Austin. (A couple have already.)
Folks may also want to contact Huffington Post to complain. Austin is listed there as one of “HuffPost’s signature lineup of contributors”. Really? The guy should be exposed to Huffington Post for what he is—a scoundrel and liar. I believe in freedom of speech, so Austin can certainly express his views in comments, but a “signature blogger” (likely paid)?
I actually wrote a long comment in response, but when I tried to post it, I was informed that I had to do so through a “verified Facebook account”, so ssince I do not like how Facebook invades privacy and tries to track everything we do on the net, I have not yet actually posted it.
Those who already comment on HuffPost, or don’t mind the FaceBook login, please do so.
In googling Ben Austin, I found the following three interesting links, among others:
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/11/parent-trigger-charlatan-ben-austin.html
http://fryingpannews.org/2013/04/02/public-schools-private-agendas-parent-revolution/
http://atthechalkface.com/2013/06/02/more-on-parent-revolution-triggerman-ben-austins-gunning-down-of-a-well-regarded-lausd-principal/
PS to my last post:
One organization listed by Austin that actually did play a very major role in the Deasy coup was United Way of Los Angeles.
Most folks probably think of United Way as a benevolent charity helping the needy, and I would guess many teachers likely contribute to it, even through payroll deduction.
Teachers nationwiide ahould be informed that United Way is now heavily funded by Gates and Broad, and is being used as a tool in their efforts to privatize the public schools.
There should be a national campaign for teachers nationwide (as well as concerned parents) to divest from United Way, to boycott it, to stop payrolll deduction and any kind of contribution to them, and to make it very clear to them why one is ceasing to contribute to them.
Anyone reading who can–please help get the word out to teachers and parents nationwide!
The few groups Austin lists who actually did support the Deasy coup are all heavily funded, and in some cases created, by Gates, Broad, and the Charter Schools Association. IT would be great if someone actually called and checked with all the other groups he lists, see if they really supported the Deasy coup. My guess is that Austin just invented the involvement of most groups listed there, to try to impress people in that blog post. If evidence about that could be gathered and presented to HuffPost, perhaps that could help convince them to discontinue his “signature blog”.
LAUSD parents should form their own school board like they did in Chicago
http://www.examiner.com/article/lausd-parents-should-form-their-own-school-board-like-they-did-chicago