Michael Hiltzik is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times who sees through the spin and illusion surrounding the Vergara decision.

The ruling will not change the material condition of any student. It will not reduce class size or produce more funding for the state’s ill-funded schools.

He writes:

“Critics of teacher unions maintain that they’re entrenched interests that block needed reforms. But they don’t have anything like the deadening effect on education of the fans of ventures like Students Matter and the Vergara lawsuit. …By some reckonings, the biggest threat to real progress in our schools is Arne Duncan. The education secretary has bought hook, line and sinker the argument that the key to pedagogical competitiveness for America is to equip every child with a laptop or tablet.

“As we’ve pointed out before, this is a policy that benefits no one but the shareholders of Apple Inc. The company has stood foursquare with Duncan in his fatuous technology campaign, which is likely to impoverish the neediest school districts by diverting their scarce resources into wasteful hardware while skimping on–here’s a surprise!–teachers.

“You want an example? Look no further than the Los Angeles Unified School District, where Supt. John Deasy has presided over an unbelievably ill-conceived and wasteful program of buying Apple iPads at inflated prices. See further coverage here, here, and here.

“But when the Vergara lawsuit came to trial, guess who was front and center testifying that, oh sure, the big problem at LAUSD was teacher tenure? Supt. John Deasy.”

Hiltzik notes that the judge glosses over all the hard questions, like how to identify “bad” teachers, how to attract and retain good teachers. He writes: “And that’s the key to all these issues of teacher quality: How do you measure it? Eviscerating the due process protection of teachers on the job won’t guarantee quality; it will only give administrators more leeway to harass or promote teachers for any reasons they choose.”

The decision, he concludes, is just snake oil. Its partisans are cheering, its opponents are in despair. But in the end, it will make little difference. It offers no real remedies for the serious underfunding of schools, and it does not offer constructive ways to strengthen the recruitment and support of the teachers that students need.

The partisans of the will ultimately be disappointed to see how little they have won. Ten years from now, we will look back and wonder what the big deal was. By then, the legislature in California may have extended the probationary period from 18 months to three years. Seniority may or may not be preserved, depending on the courts and the legislature.

But if the underlying challenges of poverty, segregation, and inadequate funding of public schools in California are not addressed, the Vergara ruling will be a forgotten footnote. Billionaires, millionaires, and hedge funders are savoring their victory now, but time will reveal that their campaign produced nothing consequential, nothing that actually helped students.

What do students need: a well-resourced school, staffed by experienced teachers, offering a full curriculum, small class size, and the services that benefit students, such as nurses, counselors, psychologists, librarians, after-school programs, and up-to-date technology. Vergara provides none of these.