Ever since it became clear that Los Angeles Superintendent John Deasy was in a whole lot of trouble and might be held accountable for his actions, the Los Angeles Times has run an editorial daily in support of him. So what if he made mistakes, the Times’ editorialists say, he is indispensable. He has a sense of urgency! He can’t wait! So what if he gave the appearance of colluding with Apple and Pearson to give them a contract for iPads and software that would cost the district $1.3 billion? So what if he raided the bond fund intended for school construction and repairs to buy those IPads? So what if he laid off arts teachers and librarians? How dare the elected school board even think of telling him what to do! He is the superintendent! Hands off, you elected troublemakers!
Robert Skeels here explains why the Los Angeles Times is gaga for Deasy. Tip: It is not about the kids.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
For the self-styled “education reformers” it is always more important to “look good” than to “do good.”
Which is more important: to hastily commit a flagrant injustice and abuse your power when you fire Ms. Patrena Shankling for doing her job well, or to stick to your immoral decision because you don’t want people to think you aren’t tough enough?
Which is more important: to competently manage and plan for a $1 billion+ iPad project and get everyone on board so it is a roaring success, or to squander incalculable amounts of political goodwill and resources on a predictably unsustainable course of action that enriches your enablers and backers?
Any wonder why I call “education reform” a business plan [with worst business practices at that!] that masquerades as an education model?
Just my dos centavitos worth…
😎
LikeLike
Here’s some video showing how LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy “honors” his LAUSD teaching staff:
LAUSD Substitute Teacher Patrena Shankling’s job required her to follow the lesson plans that the permanent teacher—for whom she was subbing—left for her. Indeed, failing to do so would lead to her being written up and fired, a fact that Superintendent Deasy ignored when Ms. Shankling later pointed it out to him.
Superintendent Deasy came in unannounced while Ms. Shenkling was doing what was required of her and following the plan. Superintendent Deasy did not announce himself, or who who he was, of what he wanted. She couldn’t recognize him from Adam… so after he was verbally abusing her and upsetting her students for a while, she did what she or any teacher—permanent or sub—was allowed to do as the head of the classroom with any stranger who wanders in to the room and starts raving like an a—hole:
She asked him to leave.
Public humiliation is barred by the UTLA contract. No administrator—not even the Superintendent—can reprimand someone in front of students, staff, parents, and/or whomever, and a grievance can be filed against that person, which, if upheld, will remain permanently in that person’s file as a formal admonishment.
(Since Ms. Shenkling was fired that same day—unlike permanent teachers like myself, subs can be fired at will—she no longer had any standing to file such a grievance. Speaking at this Board meeting was her only recourse at this point.)
That’s why then-UTLA-president Warren Fletcher (who subbed for about half of his 30 year teaching career, by the way) brought up Ms. Shankling, a fellow substitute, to recount her story at this public and televised Board meeting.
One other subtlety that needs mentioning.
At the time of Ms. Shankling’s testimony, Superintendent Deasy was engaging in a smear campaign against Dr. Richard Vladovic, the LAUSD Board president, and also a former teacher/administrator who was an opponent of Superintendent Deasy and much of what Deasy—and Deasy’s corporate backers—wanted Superintendent Deasy to execute.
Initially, Superintendent Deasy heard Vladovic was likely going to be voted in as the next LAUSD Board President—due to the results of spring 2013 elections where Monica Ratliff and Steve Zimmer defeated their corporate reform-allied opponents.
Upon learning of Vladovic’s imminent ascendancy to the LAUSD Board Presidency, Superintendent Deasy threatened to resign (Deasy does that a lot, by the way… though strangely, he never follows through). This signaled Superintendent Deasy’s corporate backers to pressure the Board not to vote in Vladovic as president.
When this fake resignation threat ploy and resulting pressure failed, Deasy leaked confidential documents of investigations of Vladovic for Vladovic’s alleged verbal abusive treatment of his staff, and another for sexual harassment of other staff. These occurred years earlier, and the investigations had were shown to be without merit, and thus, should have remained sealed.
Here’s the kicker: the woman—then and now—making the accusations was Deasy’s current personal secretary… a fact that leaked out.
Pure coincidence?
Anyway, this slime job failed as well, and the Board voted Vladovic in as president.
Here’s the deal—the ones beating the drum loudest that Vladovic was an abusive harasser and unfit to be Board president—were Deasy’s two allies on the Board, corporate reform stooges Tamar Galatzan and Monica Garcia. In doing so, these two are ostensibly standing up for the rights of employees to be free from workplace abuse, and for those victims to be able to speak up for themselves after they’ve been abused.
Well, when a vote comes where these two will decide whether Ms. Shankling will be allowed to speak up FOR HERSELF, about the abuse she suffered AT THE HANDS OF DEASY, and the chair Vladovic asks…
at 02:45
“All opposed?”
Ms. Galatzan and Ms. Garcia then thrust their hands up without blinking an eye. Apparently, their principles in support victims of harassment don’t extend to victims of Superintendent Deasy.
(For reference in the video, Vladovic the chair, is dead center. Superintendant Deasy is to Vladovic’s immediate right. Just to the right of Deasy are his corporate reform allies, Ms. Garcia and Ms. Galatzan. Watch as these twi thrust their hands up at 02:46 in opposition to Ms. Shankling being allowed an extension to speak.)
For Ms. Shankling to confront Deasy right to Deasy’s face required a lot of courage, as this is a very scary, intimidating person, with that reputation preceeding him. (Ask anyone who works in LAUSD’s Beaudry Building, its downtown headquarters.)
Also, Vladovic, citing a time constraint a moment earlier, is not going to allow Ms. Shankling to speak more than 3 minutes, but asks to see if anyone will make a motion to allow her an extension.
at: 02:30
Instantly, Monica Ratliff—the teacher on leave to serve on the Board, and who had just left the classroom three months earlier to serve on the Board—quickly says, “Ill make a motion. I want to hear the story.”
(Ratliff barely won her election by about 1,000 votes out of 80,000… even though she had only $44,000 to spend, and her corporate-reform-allied opponent spent $3 million that he got from his backers… Thank God for democracy, as her opponent, had he won, would have been under strict orders from his corporate masters not to say what Ms. Ratliff said and did in this circumstance.)
The late Marguerite LaMotte—this opponent of corporate reform passed away just a month after this meeting—seconds the motion.
LaMotte further points out that, throughout the meeting, countless astroturf / corporate reform spokespersons were allowed to speak on behalf of keeping Deasy… and allowed to go beyond the 3-minute limit for speakers, so those Board members sympathetic to Ms. Shankling should think it fair that Ms. Shankling be allowed the same opportunity.
Watch this video again at:
LikeLike
Watching and listening to Shankling’s testimony strikes a chord:
01:45 – 04:53
————————————
PATRENA SHANKLING:
“Before I could respond to his question, he began with what amounted a tirade of statements, including that ‘the assignment was a total waste of instructional time!’
“He said that ‘the assignment was disrespectful to our students!’ and that ‘I should be ashamed to give such an assignment to these students!’
“He was extremely agitated. and I felt that it was very important to de-escalate the situation, not escalate it. We were in a classroom with students. I was trying to calm him. It seemed everything I said to calm him was just escalating the situation, and this was in front of the students.
“In addition, I was really trying to understand how and why this was happening. I mean, it made no sense at all.
“… ”
“… it kept going on and on. This was ridiculous. I then reminded him that I was sub teacher, and that I was following the actual teacher’s instructions.
“He abruptly interrupted, scolding me even louder than he had before, stating that “it did not matter that I was a substitute teacher!”, nor that “the teacher had left this assignment!”
“He resumed the tirade, re-stating that “this was a total waste of instructional time!”” that I was “disrespecting students!”, that “the students must be respected!”, that I should “be ashamed as a teacher to give such an assignment to seniors!”
“At some point, he asked “Why aren’t the students doing actual work?”
“He immediately followed this question with the statement that “we had wasted two days of instruction!” This was the second day of class.
“At this point, I recognized that explaining the purpose of this assignment AGAIN was NOT going to get through to him, again was not going to get through to him, and that any further attempt to de-escalate the situation was futile… ”
AND ON IT GOES…
————————
ANY person who has EVER been in an abusive relationship (with an abusive spouse, parent, boyfriend, etc.)—or in close proximity to an abuser in full tirade, as either the victim or a bystander—knows and can recall EXACTLY the scenario Ms. Shankling is describing.
This is textbook abusive, controlling, vicious behavior. It’s sick.
As with an abusive husband, the bullying abuser has no desire whatsoever for the victim to achieve her goal of “de-escalating the situation.”
Where’s the fun in THAT?
That would prevent the abuser from getting off on the abuse and control the bully that enjoys meting out so much.
Also, in invoking the feeling of “shame”… “You should be ashamed of yourself!”… is one of the abuser’s favorite tools in his arsenal. It pushes the victim’s “Guilt Button”. It’s what’s called and “thought-stopping cliche” or “thought-terminating cliche,” to mentally pummel the victim into submission.
As to Ms. Shankling’s attempts to calm Deasy… well, survivors of abusive people know that nothing will calm an abuser who’s “in the zone”, so to speak. They have a need to inflict emotional pain that must be satisfied, and they will cease abusing until it is.
Deasy must go.
LikeLike
The L.A. Times even covered the incident with Ms. Shankling and Superintendent Deasy:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/10/local/la-me-0410-banks-20120410
In the article, Shankling is described as:
————————-
“One of the teachers she’s subbed for wrote a letter of support that reads like a report card: “Ms. Shankling is … conscientious, committed, competent … punctual, well-groomed … an excellent record-keeper who understands the importance of accuracy.”
————————————–
Here’s more (NOTE… when prompted, Deasy doesn’t apologize in the least, or even acknowledge that his abusive behavior violates LAUSD’S Code of Conduct against public humiliation):
———————
“If Deasy thinks the exercise shortchanges students, ‘he could have asked me to step outside to talk about it,’ (Ms. Shankling) said. “The problem was not the assignment. The problem was his behavior.
” ‘He’s a bully, to walk in there and disrespect a teacher the way he did. It’s so easy for him to talk about what students don’t have. A lot of what they don’t have is respect.’ ”
“Deasy’s not apologizing for his reaction. His frustration had reached the boiling point:
” ‘I’m sitting with students who have not dropped out, who have not quit, who are the most likely to go to college. And I’m watching them copying rules that were handed to them into a notebook. I struggle with that. I struggle with it a lot.’
” ‘We have a shortened school year, and so many [other] issues,’ he said. ‘This is not the way we want to use the time for students. Teaching the conventions of writing might have been a better use of their time in class.’ ”
—————————-
LikeLike
Incompetence rises (you know, like hot air).
LikeLike
Is it (1) Love, or (2) Money?
Hint. You can bet on that second thing.
LikeLike
Here is my companion piece from City Watch Today.
The LA Times’ Love Affair with John Deasy
Print
Email
18 Sep 2014 .
Written by Ellen Lubic .
VOICES-The LA Times is on a roll. This week, in their lead editorial, they put the blame for the LAUSD dysfunction squarely on the Board of Ed for questioning Deasy about the wasted costs of approximately $500 million for the iPad debacle, and for the current MiSiS fiasco which still has students waiting for class assignments.
They had the nerve to use the words of Eli Broad and his cohorts to say this Board is “political and is micro managing.” They avoid and distort the legal status of our elected BoE whose job it is to manage the Superintendent in the name of the voters who elected them to be our representatives.
Deasy works for the Board. The Board works for the taxpayers.
In LA, we have had a lingering triple digit heat wave and many classrooms are without AC and are packed with children on the verge of heat sickness, but the LA Times does not connect the dots to Deasy’s use of the Construction Bond funds for his notorious “civil rights” escapade which used that bond money to buy overpriced and obsolete tech rather than upgrading the inner city schools and making sure they have adequate AC, clean bathrooms and kitchens, and the many other construction issues so desperately needed.
They also avoid commenting on the spiteful and costly action of Deasy in hiring Beverly Hills attorney, Harvey Saferstein, to investigate the LAUSD Board of Education. We do not know to what end Deasy pursues this, nor who is paying the bill for this high priced lawyer.
A day after the glowing support of the Times/Deasy editorial, this main LA print news media does another commentary in favor of the privatizers who forced the hiring of Deasy. Now we have a double whammy with the Times coming out for Marshall Tuck in his race against Tom Torlakson for State Superintendent.
You don’t need any advanced degrees to see that their spin is in answer to the facts Howard Blume reported on the Deasy mismanagement of LAUSD. They surely got the word from Eli Broad and his sidekick lawyer Keiffer from Manatt (both quoted in the Sunday editorial) to reverse the actual news, and to spin how wonderful Deasy is, and further, how much we need Marshall Tuck as the state schools chief.
Tuck is the same guy who was kicked out of Green Dot as their director, ostensibly for mismanagement of finances. He is %100 in favor of turning public schools into charter school investments for Wall Street profit.
We need the public to fight back on this huge problem in Los Angeles. Every time the public and the ‘fighting back’ muckrakers make progress, the only major media in town spins it all. We do NOT have a free press here.
Every reader of the LA Times can raise your voice by sending letters to the editor expressing your disgust at their self serving editorials which present only the opinions of the privatizers.
Every taxpayer can email each of the 7 Board of Education members and demand an immediate external audit, and a Grand Jury investigation … and that Deasy be fired now.
(Ellen Lubic is Director of Joining Forces for Education and a public policy educator in Los Angeles. She is an occasional contributor to CityWatch. Her views are her own.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 76
Pub: Sep 19, 2014
LikeLike
Well done, Ellen. How any intelligent person can view the situation with Deasy and NOT see a major disaster happening in the LA school district is beyond me. The editors of the LA Times are either clueless, idiots, or bought out by special interests (or all three). They obviously haven’t stepped foot into one of the city schools to see the damage done in the name of progress. I suggest someone invite them in to shadow a typical teacher’s day.
From personal experience, trying to teach in an overcrowded, overheated classroom is cruel and unusual punishment. (The Buffalo Schools have heat, but very few have air conditioning and it can get pretty hot in June and during the summer school months into September).
The other Ellen
LikeLike
If there is ONE teacher that still has a Times subscription……….Shame on you.
LikeLike
A TEACHER’S PERSPECTIVE ON
HOW THE I-PADS ACTUALLY
WORKED IN PRACTICE:
Apart from the corruption involved—
conflicts of interests; going thru the
motions of a sham bidding process
when the winner had already been
chosen, etc.—one thing people forget
is that the $1.3 Billion Ipad purchase
was a majorly dumb-ass idea on
so many OTHER levels it’s hard to believe.
First of all, the bond money Deasy
blew on the Ipad debacle was
meant for the construction and
repair of existing BUILDINGS and
related infrastructure. Deasy and his
allies made the looney argument
that the portable hand computers constituted
PART of the building infrastructure…
WTF???!!!
After a stretch like that, even most
pliant gymnast would be on muscle
relaxants for weeks.
Another consideration is that, in practice,
Deasy was warned by teachers (like
the one BELOW) about all the problems
that would crop up in the actual
implementation.
Mind you, these are problems that
played out, and still would have played
out…
1) even if spending a billion-plus dollars of construction
bond money on I-pads was legally allowable (it ain’t)
and
2) even if the entire process was conducted
on the up-and-up, with no corruption
or conflict of interests (it wasn’t).
The whole I-pad purchase was, again,
a majorly dumbass undertaking from
the get-go, and this, again, was pointed
out by UTLA, parents, and community members.
Right now, that same bond money that
was blown in the Ipad fiasco..
… that same money would have gone
to repair… for example…
desperately-needed air-conditioning in the older
LAUSD school buildings. Instead, it went to
I-pads, and this has meant that children are now
sitting in classes that are the equivalent
of ovens… drenched with sweat, unable
to even concentrate… in this brutal
heat wave that we’re enduring this week.
and two weeks ago.
Thanks Dr. Deasy! (while Deasy sits in his
air-conditioned, luxury office on the 24th
floor of LAUSD Admin. building at
3rd and Beaudry downtown as this
plays out.)
Below is a link to an article on a blog
written by LAUSD teacher Martha
Infante—who teaches in South Central.
This is from her own individual blog.
In this blog post, she goes after OTHER aspects
of the Ipad debacle not covered in the
media — the fact that, apart from the
implementation of Pearson’s Common
Core testing, these I-pads were
completely useless.
Again, this is written from the
point-of-view of a the teacher on
the ground giving the actual skinny
on what actually went on with
how the Ipads performed:
Martha offers countless other criticisms:
—students getting robbed while
taking them home (as they have for
much less expensive items)
—With no policies and safeguards
in place, these devices would “disappear”
from schools and find themselves on the
black market. (they have);
—current and former administrators
refused to take responsibility for missing
computer devices”;
—students do not want to use
these devices with only Pearson
software installed on them;
—diversion of bond money that
should have gone for building repairs,
cleaning, resources, and overall
infrastructure, etc.;
—LAUSD greatly overpaid for them;
—each school’s wifi network could not
handle the usage by their entire student body.
Beyond that, there were practical uses
that were prevented by the Person/Common
Core programmed priority that went along
with, and were built in to these devices:
—No opportunity to Skype with schools
around the world,
—no ability to make “Prezis” ( (SaaS
use Ipads for class presentations
using presentation software and storytelling
tool for presenting ideas on a virtual canvas.)
— no general internet access to look stuff up.
—Once testing was over, these devices
were sent back to the district.
—teachers were totally left out of
the decision-making;
MARTHA INFANTE:
“No one asked us, the teachers, and every last prediction came true. When people started asking questions, they were silenced.”
(Regarding one of those being “silenced”, Martha hyperlinks to the times
article “LAUSD has enough yes-men; it needs Stuart Magruder,”
about a parent member of the Bond Oversight committee who voiced objections,
and was canned in Parliamentary maneuver by LAUSD Board Member
Tamar Galatzan… a corporate reformist whose campaign was
bankrolled by Eli Broad and Bill Gates, among others.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-magruder-20140617-story.html
Martha continues…
MARTHA INFANTE: “Now I start my school year with students sharing cell phones with each other to do research (contrary to popular belief, not all students from poverty have internet access). I research ways to write grants for a class set of kindles, because these are the most affordable and at least they can connect to the worldwide web.
“But worse, I suffer the insult of a Bostonian man telling me that he is more interested and invested in improving the lives of our students than I and thousands of others of educators are and have been.
“I am not content to let this ride out. My students don’t have a voice (yet) and I do. Stay tuned for more blogging this year, and thank you for reading.”
—————————————————-
Here’s the entirety of Martha’s blog article:
http://dontforgetsouthcentral.blogspot.com/2014/08/ipads-are-good-for-students-arent-they.html
Don’t Forget South Central: iPads Are Good For Students, Aren’t They?
————————————————–
————————————————–
“Don’t Forget South Central: iPads Are Good For Students. Aren’t they?
“If you believe technology can replace teachers, then yes. I do not believe it. Let me back up. Hi! My name is Martha Infante and I have been in education for 24 yea…
“As a career classroom teacher, it has been a surreal experience to live trough the transformation of my profession.
“If you believe technology can replace teachers, then yes. I do not believe it.
“Let me back up.
“Hi! My name is Martha Infante and I have been in education for 24 years. I love teaching. I would also love a class set of computers for my students to do research and projects, but our schools have been decimated in recent years with budget cuts and we are only now recovering. In fact, this is what got me started in blogging.
“Why is the iPad issue so controversial? It might be because our Superintendent John Deasy, who sees himself as a champion of civil rights, believes iPads will equalize educational opportunities for students from poverty. Not more teachers, counselors, clean buildings, resources, training…but iPads.
“The Los Angeles Unified School District, however, is paying $768 per device for its students, teachers and administrators, making it one of the nation’s most expensive technology programs.
“After we overpaid for these devices with bond money, they made their appearance in my school for one purpose only: to test children. No opportunity to Skype with schools around the world, no ability to make Prezis, no general internet access to look stuff up. Once testing was over, these devices were sent back to the district.
“What did we give up when choosing these expensive devices? Well, the money that could have gone to infrastructure went to iPads. As a result, schools have ant, roach, and rodent issues, broken classrooms and buildings, and few devices to use for instructional purposes.
“I have a real problem with not involving teachers in the conversation. My main concern was that students would get robbed (and possibly injured) while taking their iPads home. This happens regularly in the neighborhood where I teach, for much less valuable items.
“With no policies and safeguards in place, these devices would “disappear” from schools and find themselves on the black market.
“At Dymally Senior High, “current and former administrators refused to take responsibility for missing computer devices,” the report said.-LA Times
“Students will not want to use these devices with only Pearson software installed on them.
“Was each school’s wifi network enough to handle the usage by their entire student body?
“No one asked us, the teachers, and every last prediction came true. When people started asking questions, they were silenced.
“LAUSD has enough yes-men; it needs Stuart Magruder
“Now I start my school year with students sharing cell phones with each other to do research (contrary to popular belief, not all students from poverty have internet access). I research ways to write grants for a class set of kindles, because these are the most affordable and at least they can connect to the worldwide web.
“But worse, I suffer the insult of a Bostonian man telling me that he is more interested and invested in improving the lives of our students than I and thousands of others of educators are and have been.
“I am not content to let this ride out. My students don’t have a voice (yet) and I do. Stay tuned for more blogging this year, and thank you for reading.”
LikeLike
I’m a big supporter of public schools, but I’d have a lot of trouble voting for more funding again if the superintendent blew a billion dollars.
Sorry. I don’t care how “urgent” he is. “Urgency” doesn’t mean he has to be a horrible manager and incredibly reckless with public funds. I don’t even have to go to capture or corruption or motive. This was just dumb, and his insisting he’s being somehow victimized by “politics” is an incredibly weak response.
LikeLike
He has derided and disheartened his entire workforce in ways big and small. From filthy classrooms, time consuming and ineffective assessing, poor implementation and hasty purchases of material and computer systems, he has failed to inspire and lead. Add that to the lists above, and I think it is time for a change. The Times stated it received one letter (which they printed!) in support of Deasy,out of almost 50 writing against him, out of which they printed two. That ratio of printing gives the impression he has the support of the community, along with “community leaders”. Many of those head charities that receive hearty bequests from the Broad Foundation.
LikeLike
Melissa, you report this correctly and the LA Times article today about graduation rates increasing is a prime example of how even Howard Blume is encouraged to slant the news. He starts out with lauding Deasy and showing an uptick in grad rates. It is only near the end of the article, on a back page, that he gives true facts about how the data is collected, or rather, poorly and mistakenly collected. The biased LA Times relies on the lax reading habits of the community whereby most people only read the lead paragraph.
The letter section today is another embarrassment. The letters editor reports that they only received 50 letters re the phony and minimalist Jim Newton article earlier this week. Not true.
Both my group, Joining Forces for Education, and Karen Wolfe’s group, sent in way over 50 letters. This number does not factor in all the teacher and community member letters as well. With only one pro Deasy juxtaposed against one anti Deasy, they continue to stack the deck. This paper is now full fledged YELLOW journalism and is merely a tool of the Eli Broad-ies, not to be believed about much of anything.
LikeLike
Deasy believes a teacher’s years on the job equates to the inches of that teacher’s height… in terms of its relevance to judging that teacher’s abilities, or deciding how much to pay that teacher.
Here’s a post that details this:
—————————–
Someone did a “Ten Stupidest Things Arne Duncan Said” a while ago.
Perhaps the same thing could be done for John Deasy. Here’s a good start. Go to
Deasy’s interview last month (Sepember 2014) with Tavis Smiley:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/john-deasy-2/
The quote is at —
03:52 – :
(the CAPITALS and () parentheticals are mine, Jack)
—————————————————–
JOHN DEASY:
“As far as Last-In–and-First-Out, I don’t support that in any fashion whatsoever… uhhmm… in the notion that when you have to make decisions to lay off faculty because of budget cuts—and we know here in California, we’ve been through a horrific situation, uhhh… in terms of lack of money for public education—the decision has to be made solely on the day the person is hired. Well, why don’t we use teacher HEIGHT? I mean, THAT’S objective… uhmm, you can easily determine the highest, the tallest teacher. You wouldn’t do that either. So why (base it on) some day (i.e. start day on the job)?
“You want to be able to make a decision on the contribution…”
—————————————————–
At this point in the interview, Deasy then deviously dishes out some disinformation and misdirection as he gushes about how wonderful some teachers and their “contribution” is, and and that “honoring” those good teachers’ contribution is the reason he’s out to gut all teachers’ job protections in backing the Vergara decision.
Gee, how nice of him.
Why MUST those evil teacher unions get in his way when all Deasy wants to do is “honor” teachers? What’s WRONG with them?
He fails to mention that it’s NOT just “BAD” teachers’ job protections he’s after, but “ALL” teachers’ job protections.
I was in an audience when Deasy gave a speech at Occidental College a couple years ago, and he said a teacher’s career should not last more than five years, before that teacher moves on to their “real” career. Deasy and his ilk view the veteran teacher—10 years or more—with undisguised contempt, seeing them as lazy, overpaid, and basically worthless. If you went to an LAUSD teacher jail, it looks like an AARP meeting, as the Deasy-ite principals were given a directive to doctor up and trump up false charges against as many veterans as possible—to lower the line of item of salary in the budget, not improve teacher quality. If the Vergara decision stands, they’ll all be instantly fired.
The truth is that Deasy—and more specifically, the moneyed forces backing him—wants to de-professionalize teaching, to make it more like a low-level service job like office temping, fast food, retail, etc., than a profession like law, medicine, engineering, etc. Of course this as being done…
1) to lessen the tax burden on business and ramp up their bottom line profits and the price of their shareholders’ stock;
AND
2) to make education a more profitable industry for privatization—where teachers can be more like Walmart workers with no job protections, little pay, etc.
Anyway, getting back to the above quote, Deasy says that a teacher’s length of service should be totally ignored when making personnel or compensation decisions.
THE REASON: basing such decisions on a teacher’s number of years of services is the same as basing it on a teacher’s number of inches in his height.
Really, John? Seriously? You’re in your mid-fifties now, and it’s possible you may soon or eventually need open-heart surgery (or some other high-risk surgery.) Would you prefer to be operated on by a surgeon who’s done it…
2 times before he operates on you?
20 times before he operates on you?
200 times before he operates on you?
2,000 times before he operates on you?
According to you, John, judging that surgeon on the prior number of times he’s successfully performed open-heart surgery is like judging him on the number of inches of his height.
What an asinine analogy. Let’s compare it even further.
INCHES OF HEIGHT: a teacher—or his supervising administrator(s)—has NO control over that, as it is decided in the womb.
YEARS OF TEACHING IN THE CLASSROOM: being able to survive this is totally dependent on the teacher’s innate abilities, persistence, drive to work hard, and his determination to perform the countless and highly-demanding requirements of the job… and survive administrator evalutions, and prove himself / herself over and over to an administrator that they deserve to be on the job—even AFTER being granted tenure.
Bad teachers can and do get justly pushed out all the time… without actually going thru the technical process of termination or “being fired.”. The same goes for high-paid teachers who are unjustly fired, in order to save money.
What must a teacher do during that say, his first year of teaching, or 2 years, or 5, 10, 20, 30, etc., to remain on the job? What are some of the requirements that he must perform, or else, if he fails to do so, will get written up and eventually fired?
Well, let’s examine that.
Principals and other administrators come through our classes all the ding-dong day, folllowed by criticisms, e-mails and / or “conference memos” which demand and get immediate action.
Parents can be equally demanding, as evidenced during the scheduled parent-teacher conferences during the school year, and those unscheduled conferences resulting from a problem the parent demands that the teacher MUST address.
The students’ results on quarterly assessments—and annual standardized tests—in Language and Math are scrutinized to a fair-thee-well.
Accompanying these analyses are demands to address the needs of those students who are falling behind., and administrative monitoring as to whether we as teachers have done so. (And this is apart from the annual or bi-annual “Stull” evaluation that teachers go through)
Here’s more of what a teacher does:
— detailed report cards;
— lesson planning or all subjects (with a detailed lesson plan book with precisely stated objectives, methodology, etc— present and visible at all times);
— endless, constant grading & gradebook record-keeping that would tax any accountant;
— meticulously decorated and designed walls and bulletin boards ( with graded & finished student work corresponding to California Standards posted both in the classroom and in the hallway, and which must be changed regularly);
— mandated classroom environment with required centers (library, listening center, etc.); constant photocopying / prep for the upcoming lessons);
— I.E.P meetings for certain children with issues (with detailed documentation, writing, pre-planning, and execution of the I.E.P. plan itself);
— after-school “homework” clubs / tutoring that most teachers offer (unpaid and off-the-clock mind you);
— the grading of students’ writing (a very labor-intensive job by itself ) followed by individual one-on-one writing conferences with each student; regular after-school teacher meetings;
— intervening in and counseling regarding bullying, fights, or the often toxic dynamics of cliques; grade-level meetings;
— meetings of the entire faculty;
— after-school professional development meetings;
— the newly-mandated prep for the standardized tests;
— constant intervention with misbehaving children involving phone calls / meetings with parents; home visits;
— unpaid and emotionally-draining social work for children from distressed, impoverished homes with often-horrific personal situations;
— constant organizing and cleaning of the classroom itself;
— planning and executing of on-going projects;
— purchasing out-of-pocket supplies;
— the focused, on-your-feet performance of directed instruction itself; attending to children with special needs; and on and on…
That’s only a PARTIAL list of what we are required to do.
Now according to Deasy, the length of time that a teacher has performed these and other demands SHOULD MEAN NOTHING when making decisions in:
paying that teacher (salary schedule);
or
not firing/continuing to hire that teacher.
Why? Well, because Deasy says that judging by the years on the job doing all this is the same as judging that teacher by the inches of that teachers’ height.
The unbelievable demands they constantly have to meet, and the challenging and trying circumstances in which they work mean nothing to this man—or again, more specifically, the moneyed forces backing him.
LikeLike
Thanks Jack for reminding us, and Editorial Board of the LA Times which reads this site, about the slanted Tavis Smiley interview. Smiley had interviewed the devious and overbearing Eli Broad weeks before he interviewed Deasy. Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dum stressed the same manipulated info….and of course, the Broad Foundation is a major funder of the public broadcast that pays Smiley’s salary.
Would that he had chosen to invite some teachers to also be interviewed to give some balance to the whole charade.
Broad is leading this year’s charge to reinstate the failed John Deasy by leaning on the LA Times, and all other news sources, with his false mantra that the BoE “micro manages” poor Deasy. His and Deasy’s orchestrated street theater last Oct. 29 has been exposed for what it was, a costly media ‘photo op’ to influence the BoE….and they fell for it and extended the Deasy contract.
This year, at the final Oct. BoE meeting, will they try to pull off this kind of manipulation again?
Or will they have done enough to trample the facts of Deasy’s mismanagement, through use of the ‘bought off’ media?
Will the BoE fall for all this mendacity again, or will they finally listen to the public outcry that Deasy must go, and that there must not be any more Broad Academy CEOs appointed to lead LAUSD…into the toilet and into bankruptcy?
LikeLike
Try to imagine L.A. Police Chief Beck saying:
———————————————————
L.A. Police Chief Beck:
“As far as Last-In–and-First-Out, I don’t support that in any fashion whatsoever… uhhmm… where the decision on pay or continuing to hire that police officer has to be made solely on the day a police officer is hired. Well, why don’t we use police officer HEIGHT? I mean, THAT’S objective… uhmm, you can easily determine the highest, the tallest police officer. You wouldn’t do that either. So why base police officer pay or personnel decisions based on their start day on the job?”
———————————————————
Or a Fire Chief, or a leader in any branch of the U.S. armed forces… dumping on those who chose to make teaching, or fire fighting, or the military a career instead of a short-time gig, before they move on to—as Deasy puts it—their “real” career.
The morale would plummet.
Deasy says that he would prefer a system where a teacher’s career lasts five years max. Well, 50% of public school teachers ALREADY quit within five years. As far as career change teachers—those coming from other professions, that’s 50% after TWO years, and 75% after five years.
Deasy—-and the moneyed forces directing him—-want to make it so that 100% of teachers quit withing five years…. that’s “public school” teachers, not the private schools where so many corporate reform billionaires send their own kids.
How many 2-years-and-out Teach for America corps members teach at Bill Gates’ kids’ private school up in Seattle? Or Michelle Rhee/Tim Huffman’s kids at Harpeth Hall in Tennessee? Or Obama’s kids at Sidwell Friends in D.C.? Or Rahm Emanuel’s kids at the Chicago Lab School?
When I talk to those career change teachers—who came from aerospace, or accounting, or entertainment, or from wherever—I hear something along the lines of… “I had no idea that this job was so hard, so demanding, so grueling, so full of stress, so time-consuming… yadda-yadda-yadda… ”
The ones who don’t wash out in five years or less, the ones who stay on longer—longer than Deasy’s preferred five years—are the survivors, the dedicated ones, the creme-de-la-creme, and as such, deserve a system of due process, and a pay system with step increases—where commensurately higher pay comes with a commensurate increase in years of the experience that more and more years on the job brings.
No doubt about it, teachers get better the longer they are on the job—it’s totally counter-intuitive and defies common sense to think otherwise. Their instincts on how to handle the myriad of situations that arise—both academic and non-academic—become second-nature. Through trial and error and repeated practice, they improve in their ability in how to teach specific concepts—i.e. the dreaded “rounding” lesson in Math for the little ones, up to Calculus for the high schoolers. The constant ongoing evaluation from administrators—both formal and informal—sharpen all of their skills.
In short, they’re professionals, and should be treated with the respect that professionals deservce, and not have their years of experience equated to inches in their height, and essentially told that those years MEAN NOTHING. What a slap in the face!
If the idea that teachers improve with experience were not so, the websites of the expensive private schools would not tout the decades of teaching experience that their staff brings to the job.
Deasy taught two years at a military school back in the 1980’s. That’s the sum of his own experience, so perhaps he’s intimidated by those with decades of experience… as well as carrying out his corporate masters’ marching orders in targeting veteran teachers.
LikeLike
I left this comment (with a few additions here) on the local public radio site regarding a discussion asking if LAUSD’s classrooms are better off: http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2014/10/03/39676/as-rumors-swirl-about-john-deasy-s-future-a-look-a/
“I did a spit-take with my morning coffee after reading today’s LA Times editorial in support of Deasy. I’ve seen this Superintendent terminate the District Title I Committee (required by Federal law, LAUSD receiving funds but not facilitating any committee – out of compliance). I was told by District personnel in September of 2013 that he also had plans to do the same with the English Language Learner District Committee and that it, too, would probably also be terminated.
Nothing is better for families now, nothing. Especially those families of students with disabilities…and around 80% of those approximately 82,000+ identified students with disabilities are also qualified as Title I students. Under Deasy’s leadership over the years, Division of Special Education personnel has been cut and cut and cut to the point that there are not enough people to ensure proper compliance with Special Education Individual Education Plans (IEP) implementation. Wonderful programs created under former (retired) Special Education Director, Donnalyn Anton are gone. Professional development she created is gone, and in this last year of helping parents – I’ve witnessed a lack of understanding of special education laws, policies and procedures that has stunned me. Families need to fight for services that are shown by assessments to be necessary and had been given without argument in the past if shown the need. I’ve had every IEP this year go to due process with one settled in mediation.
IEPs are contentious, driven by budget, not the child’s needs – which could be seen as a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Fewer District people understand how to implement IEPs once they’re written. At one school, the Vice Principal in CHARGE of Special Education services did not know she was supposed to provide quarterly updates on how a child with an IEP is meeting (or not) goals so a parent can be aware of problems and intervention can occur before a child falls behind. The Principal was observing in this meeting and gently chastised her failure. Non compliance is abundant due to lack of understanding. Families have the right to give notice and digitally audio record IEPs so I have this amazing conversation on record – mom also made her own recording as did the school).
Programs that once existed are gone. Services and service providers who were once available are now gone. LAUSD is under a Federal Consent Decree regarding failure to provide proper services for these students and wants badly to get out from under it, but it seems LAUSD is going backwards. Signing off would be a disservice to the children. If one board member would attend a Public Hearing, just one, they would hear abuse after abuse of power, lack of compliance, hostility towards families who only want their children to be properly served. I am in tears after every hearing, always. But we never have media coverage of this. The next hearing is Wednesday, November 19, 2014, link here: http://www.oimla.com/
and I urge families who are not seeing their child’s IEP being properly implemented to attend and speak or send in a letter for the public record. If the Independent Monitor does not know of the abuse, he’ll assume all is fine and WILL sign off. It would be lovely if the media took interest as well, but I know that’s wishful thinking.
I’ve served families of LAUSD’s students with disabilities as an advocate and as an 18 year volunteer and member of the Special Education Community Advisory Committee so have seen the changes. I served 10 of those 18 years in various 2-year term board positions: (2 terms as Chair, 1 term as Secretary, 1 term as Treasurer – even though we have no funds in an account as an organization. My one duty as treasurer was to co-sign forms to close the empty account in existence. I have been integral in nearly all bylaws updates over the years and instigated removing the position of Treasurer from the bylaws when it became obsolete by replacing it with Public Relations Chair, where I served 1 term).
I resigned earlier this year as Chair due to district personnel controlling and interfering with our ability to fulfill our legal mandates and after asking for guidance and assistance regarding the interference that went unanswered. Then, this last school year our Special Education Community Advisory Committee had meeting structure changed without the committee’s knowledge, input, discussion or vote due to a memo created in August 2013 by then Deputy, Dr. Aquino. Link here (note pg 2, 2nd bullet point describes the change in meeting structure): http://home.lausd.net/ourpages/auto/2013/9/6/44433588/MEM-6140%20SP%20ED%20PARENT%20TRAINING%20CALENDARS.PDF
The memo circumvented CAC bylaws, the LAUSD Local Plan and handed over “facilitation” (which became “control”) to the Parent Community Services Branch (PCSB – a dept that formerly assisted Title 1 & English Language learner District committees until they were terminated – they had no one else to “control” anymore so were “gifted the CAC, I guess) from Division of Special Education personnel who understood the parents and knew how to work with them – all without the participation or approval of the committee members themselves. The memo changed meeting structure from having one business meeting each month of the school year (as stated in the current bylaws) to only four business meetings with the remaining months used as TRAININGS (no business discussion allowed during Trainings). Less time allowed to discuss and debate issues pertaining to the needs of students with disabilities and less ability to respond quickly to State requests for comments regarding proposed changes to laws. The committee was hamstrung and it seems to have been purposeful. How can a committee function if not allowed to meet and discuss business? Some PCSB personnel were actively hostile to membership and complaints to the Division of Special Education and the School Board were ignored. The committee was effectively put into a non compliant situation by District personnel, I argued that point, but no one cared – not even State Dept of Ed. since they tend to back district administration decisions over parent concerns – Ed Code be damned.
The legitimacy of the memo changing the meeting structure of CAC has been questioned by membership, but they’ve never received a straight answer from LAUSD citing pertinent laws that supposedly “allow” this interference. Rather than cite specific laws to answer questions, my abilities were questioned in a letter written by LAUSD attorneys for Rowena LaGrossa, Administrator of PCSB. Implying that I was misinterpreting law and suggesting improprieties of my leadership, they never did ANSWER WHY the memo was legitimate with any legal reference. NEVER.
Most LAUSD policy isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on if not agendized, discussed and voted on by the School Board to be included into Board Rules first. If NOT included as an agenda item on a Regular School Board Meeting, posted 72 hours in advance and allowing for public comment before the Board votes on whether to include this as policy or NOT, then it is is not truly policy if not made a Board Rule. I still don’t understand how LAUSD administrators, who are NOT CAC members (two names on the memo) can create a policy that overrides the bylaws of a State and Federally mandate Advisory Committee. The SELPA is to facilitate the advisory committee, not dictate to it. If telling the CAC how to function, then why have bylaws? Why have members?
There was NO open meeting, public comment or vote. CAC members would have attended and rejected this if there had been a proper public procedure, but only found out about it three months AFTER the memo was released. This appears to violate the Brown Act and numerous pleas for help to the Board were ignored. The only person who was willing to speak to me as the Chair at that time was Interim Board Rep, Dr. Sylvia Rousseau. All other Board Members were silent, yet according to the State Education Code, the LAUSD CAC members are appointed by and accountable to the governing board of the LAUSD Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA). CAC Ed Code link here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=56001-57000&file=56190-56194
The CAC was ignored by those to whom they are tasked to provide oversight. As this last school year progressed, our members just stopped coming due to the unwelcoming environment at PCSB and the lack of ability for the committee to perform their duties. The last meeting of the school year was to have elections. Only 4 members were in attendance so there was no quorum. As there was no quorum – no election so there are no officers AND the CAC appears out of compliance with the state and leaderless.
PCSB personnel, who are NOT members are now planning the upcoming October meeting and agenda without member participation or input – it seems no longer to be a functioning PARENT/COMMUNITY Advisory Committee. For all appearances it seems an “LAUSD Personnel Advisory Committee” – which is not what is stated in the Education Code regarding CACs.
The PCSB is not communicating with the Division of Special Education over this apparently as there are two different meeting dates listed on two different sites. If one goes to the PCSB site, the first CAC meeting of the year is scheduled for Wednesday, October 8, 2014 (more non-compliance as our bylaws state meetings in Sept and there was none). If one goes to the Division of Special Education site, the first CAC meeting of the year is listed as Wednesday, October 15, 2014. When members have called both offices for clarification, a “new improved” automated system puts them in push-button hell where no human being has returned calls. How does LAUSD expect parent participation when they can’t even agree on which date a meeting is to occur and don’t return calls when there is public request for clarification?
Links here: On Division of Special Education site, PATIO Calendar update lists a CAC MEETING (not Training) scheduled for Oct 15th, 2014: http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/domain/164/patio/2014-2015/Attachment%20A-1%20%20PATIO%20Training%20Calendar%202014%20Fall%20WEB%20ONLY.pdf
PCSB site states the upcoming CAC meeting as Oct 8th, 2014. Either the two depts are no longer communicating or they purposefully want to mess with parents and confuse them: http://achieve.lausd.net/site/Default.aspx?PageID=0&PageType=17&DomainID=72&ModuleInstanceID=1427&EventDateID=934
A member texted me a photo of an earlier Division of Special Education calendar that listed the meeting as Oct 1, 2014 before it was changed to Oct 15. She had downloaded and already posted and shared that with her local school site. She now needs to contact all parents to explain the error, but has no idea which date is correct since no one calls back to provide that information. The District is either trying mightily to keep us from being involved or is having a serious case of incompetence.
A new CAC application form was created by District personnel without member input or approval that adds a statement requiring members to abide by a “code of conduct” (this code is NOT attached to the application). Created by PCSB personnel, not members, this code gives power to LAUSD personnel to remove any parent they may deem showing “inappropriate” conduct, taking away from the power of the Chair and membership. LAUSD’s School Board does not require members to sign a code, but does have a board rule regarding conduct in meetings. The Board President has the right to determine whether to remove participants – not outside, non member facilitators as was being pushed on the CAC. Link here to application: http://lausd.schoolwires.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/domain/164/cac/CAC%20APPLICATION%20June%202014.pdf
Link here for offensive code language. See Attachment J (pdf pg 64): http://home.lausd.net/ourpages/pcsb/pubs/Bul%205797_1%201%201%2025%2013.pdf
In the summer of 2013, CAC members had a bylaws work group. PCSB personnel were forced upon the members as “participants” in this work group (due to Memo 6140 of which we were uninformed at the time – making it confusing and upsetting). PCSB tried to force CAC members to include the code of conduct in the bylaws update, but members refused. So sly to see it now on the “new improved” application without the actual code being shown. It also requires an applicant to declare willingness to follow LAUSD Policies and Procedures (see my comment about not being worth the paper most are printed on). Many changes seem to have occurred over the summer without member input.
If the School Board would have such interference with their duties, they’d be screaming. Why is it ok to ignore the State and Federally mandated Advisory Committee calls for help so they may better serve the Governing Board? My only assumption is that they don’t really care. Listening to attorneys instead of constituents does not correct the problem. If anything – attorneys (who are not members of the committee, but represent District interests, not those of the parents/families and children with special needs) seem to be re-writing CAC application forms and have already created a “draft” bylaws (presented at the end of the last school year to another non quorum meeting) that no member had anything to do with. The work group bylaws draft seems now off the table. With so much District control in the advisory committee, how can it truly advise? It’s become a joke, and a non-compliant one at that.
Interference, meddling and creating policy without public discussion seems to be LAUSD’s way of dealing with parents. There is no TRUE parent participation. It appears that all LAUSD wants is warm bodies to sign-off on compliance paperwork to keep the funding coming in – whether compliant or not. Shame on all of them, but especially Supt. Deasy for creating a climate of distrust and exclusion with parents, especially those of students with disabilities. It seems obvious he and the Board don’t really want us involved in a meaningful way or their CAC would not have been treated so horribly this last school year, but then Deasy’s supporters (corporate privatizers and reformer$) never did seem to want THOSE kids anyway.”
LikeLike
Absolutely vital and great exposition on Title 1, special needs, and ELL students and parents…thanks Sonja.
It is a rarely reported on assault to the Advisory Committee…the public has no way to learn about this other than online. So sorry to learn more about how these mandated parent groups were treated by Deasy. Truly heartbreaking and another strong coffin nail in getting rid of Deasy NOW. He always seemed to view the ignored parents groups as only ‘window dressing.’
LikeLike
I am so sorry about this situation in LA. I have been on both sides of the IEP meetings – as a parent and as a teacher. There is often a conflict between the rights of the child vs the district priorities. Individuals, such as yourself, can make a difference. The parent advocates at my son’s IEP meetings were extremely supportive and assisted me in procuring the appropriate services. Even with my prior experiences, it was still a struggle.
Unfortunately, when districts are confronted with discrepancies between mandates and practices, they simply ask for a variance, making it harder to fight for student rights.
We must remain vigilant, even in the face of adversity. Good luck. Take heart in the fact that there are many of us out here in your corner.
LikeLike
I am sending this Ravitch blog report to each member of the LAUSD BoE. Hope many of you will also contact them with your thoughts. Time is of the essence since the BoE on Oct. 21, votes yes or no to keeping Deasy.
It seems the greater world sees what an inept and mendacious charlatan he is, with the exception of the Broad-biased LA Times. Hopefully the BoE, with all the new facts as to his mismanagement, will toughen up and follow the directions of the public who elects them, and not Eli Broad who attempts to bully and/or buy them.
LikeLike
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-austin-beutner-los-angeles-times-publisher-20140811-story.html#page=1
Read about the Wall Street publisher in charge of the LA Times. Makes the biased editorial policy come clear.
LikeLike
LA Times l;etter to the Editor section reported about 50 letters about Deasy this past week, more than any other topic. Only one supported him, and the rest were opposed. So they printed the one that supported him, and three of those opposed.
I think it is important that they keep receiving a lot of letters in opposition to their Deasyphile editorial stance. If you have not yet written one, please do so soon.
LikeLike
I’m so sick and Deasy—in the lawsuit, and
in general with comments like “lifting children
out of poverty—claiming he’s all about
the children.
Here’s a blast from the recent past (July 2013)
regarding Deasy failing to do something to
improve education for kids—in this case,
lower class size, as directed to him in a 5-2
vote of the pre-Ratliff board:
Before you read this, here’s Board Member
Zimmer’s impassioned speech that preceded
the vote to lower class size:
Zimmer points out the hypocrisy of Deasy—
and his two allies on the school board,
Tamar Galatzan & Monica Garcia
On the one hand, they champion
the charter schools/chains that
financially back Deasy, Galatzan, and
Garcia, and that they claim are so
superior to traditional public schools
with unions, AND THEIR MAIN FEATURE
IS LOWER CLASS SIZE. The charters tout
this on their web pages, that Zimmer, in a
Pacino-esque moment, starts throwing
around the room.
And yet… Deasy, Galatzan, and Garcia
fight tooth and nail from funding the
same lowering of class size for those
traditional public schools, effectively
tying one hand behind those schools’
and teachers’ backs, and denying those
students the advantages of lower class size.
They’re rigging the game in favor of their
beloved charters who bankrolled their
campaigns.
They do this because even though they
know full well that traditional public school
students would benefit from this—the way
the students in their beloved charters do—
their ultimate goal is to starve the traditional
public schools into failure, and weaken
and wreck the teachers’ union, as they will
have less members, less dues, and a
membership angry at their leaders, and
fighting among themselves for less
classroom positions.
Deasy, Galatzan, and Garcia are following
their corporate masters’ marching orders…
and doing so to the detriment of the students
in tradiional public schools.
Even after this motion was passed, DEASY
publicly went on L.A. SCHOOL REPORT
and defiantly said, “I’m not doing it… You
can’t make me.” He derided the plan
to lower class size as “a directive to hire
every human being on the West Coast.”
Here’s Ravitch’s coverage at the time:
============================
Deasy Defies New L.A. Board Majority
By dianeravitch
July 12, 2013 //
When the Los Angeles school board prepared to elect a new president, Superintendent John Deasy let it be known that he might resign if Richard Vladovic won the election.
Vladovic won by 5-2. The two nay votes came from outgoing president Monica Garcia and her ally Tamar Galatzan.
Before the election, there were rumors that Vladovic was under investigation for verbally abusing board employees, and newspaper accounts suggested that Deasy was trying to derail his candidacy. That did not help their working relationship.
The new board passed a resolution endorsing class size reduction, a measure opposed by Deasy. Deasy favored a motion by Galatzan proposing more money for high-needs students, which was postponed by the board.
In a show of defiance, Deasy said he would comply with the resolution that was not passed because the board did not forbid him from doing it. Deasy opposes reduced class size because it will mean hiring more staff.
This is what he told the LA School Report (a pro-corporate reform newspaper):
————————————
JOHN DEASY: “The Board voted down the directive to have me come and do it,” said Deasy, referring to Galatzan’s local spending resolution. “[But] they can’t stop me from doing it; we’re doing it anyway. If they had voted to prevent me from doing it… well they didn’t think of that.”
———————————–
“The Superintendent explained that the future spending plan the Board ordered him to produce will comply with the Board-passed Kayser resolution regarding staffing (or as Deasy derisively called it, a “directive to hire every human being on the West Coast”) but will also include some form of the local spending plan he and Galaztan have been advocating.”
When the unions learned that Deasy would ignore the board vote, they wrote a letter to the board.
They raised the question about why Deasy intended to flout the authority of the board he works for.
With a number of strong wills converging, this will be worth watching.
Bottom line: How long will Deasy last as an employee of a board whose leadership he does not like or trust, and how long will the board tolerate insubordination by Deasy?
———————
Here’s Zimmer’s classic class size speech at:
LikeLike
Also, I would recommend to all concerned about the LA Times recent Deasy-loving editorials: If you have a subscription to the Times, immediately cancel it, and make it very clear why you are cancelling it. (Note, you can still read the articles online, although they limit it to I think five per day.)
If many people do that within a short time frame, they could not help but notice, and the effect on their income might make an impression.
LikeLike
Regarding the LAUSD:
Is there a pattern of abuse focusing on women and minority teachers? It sounds like there are definitely age issues in play when evaluating the worth of an individual teacher.
It’s hard to believe that such behaviors are condoned by anyone in public service, especially the superintendent of a major school system.
Just what society needs – petty tyrants doing everything in their power to ruin the lives of hard working people.
LikeLike
For your convenience, here’s the text of the two
the two union presidents’ letter TO THE 7
LAUSD SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS,
expressing their outrage over Deasy’s
defiance of the Board’s directive:
(those union presidents are then-President
of the UTLA teachers’ union Warren Fletcher,
and his equivalent for administrators/principals/
asst. principals, Judy Perez, President,
Associated Administrators of Los Angeles”
(AALA)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
“July 10, 2013
“Honorable Richard Vladovic,
—President, LAUSD Board of Education
“Honorable Marguerite LaMotte,
—Board Member, District 1
“Honorable Monica Garcia,
—Board Member, District 2
“Honorable Tamar Galatzan,
—Board Member, District 3
“Honorable Steve Zimmer,
—Board Member, District 4
“Honorable Bennett Kayser,
—Board Member, District 5
“Honorable Monica Ratliff,
—Board Member, District 6
“Dear Board Members:
“We are writing on behalf of the members of our two
organizations: United Teachers Los Angeles, which
represents the 36,000 classroom teachers and health
and human services professionals of LAUSD, and
Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, exclusive
representative for over 2,300 certificated and
classified administrators within the District.
“We wish to raise a concern about recent statements
by Superintendent John Deasy, related to his
obligation to abide by the policy positions and
directives of the Board of Education.
“On June 20, the ‘LA School Report,’ published a
story entitled, ‘Defiant Deasy Says He’ll Push
Targeted Spending Plan Anyway.’ In that article
Mr. Deasy clearly indicates that it is his intention
to circumvent the Board vote on use of new state
LCFF monies.
“Specifically, Mr. Deasy is quoted as stating that,
” ‘The Board voted down the directive. . . ,’ referring
to Ms. Galatzan’s recent local spending resolution,
” ‘[But] they can’t stop me from doing it; we’re doing
it anyway.’ ”
“To date, we have not been able to locate
any report that Mr. Deasy has disavowed these
public statements, nor has he indicated that he was
misquoted.
“The Superintendent is an employee of the District,
and is legally required to operate ‘under the
control of the Board.’ The California courts have
recognized that a Superintendent does not
‘exercise independent powers’ (Main vs.
Claremont, Unified School District, 161
CalApp 2d189, 204).
“As the presidents of two organizations charged
with representing and bargaining for a large
proportion of District employees, we do not
expect that Mr. Deasy’s statements and policy
positions will always align with those of our
respective organizations.
“However, as both District employees and as
taxpayers, we do expect that the
Superintendent will, at all times, discharge his
duties in a manner that is consistent with his
role as the District’s chief executive officer.
Statements and conduct to the contrary can
only erode public confidence in the Board
and the District.
“California law clearly places both the power
and the responsibility for ultimate leadership
of the District in the hands of its elected
governing board. Regardless of Mr. Deasy’s
motives or intentions, no district, and no
community, is served when this democratic
authority is undermined.
“Please contact either of us if you have any
questions. We are thankful for your time and
attention to this matter.
“Respectfully,
“Warren Fletcher
President,
United Teachers Los Angeles
“Judith Perez
President,
Associated Administrators of Los Angeles”
————————————–
————————————–
Did this letter have any impact on Deasy’s
defiant refusal to lower class size?
Nope… it never happened to this day.
LikeLike
Oh… and here’s the earlier L.A. SCHOOL
REPORT article that includes the
comments from Deasy about defying
the board (and includes Deasy’s
asinine “hire every human being on
the West Coast” line:
http://laschoolreport.com/defiant-deasy-says-hell-continue-to-push-local-spending-plan/
————————————————
“Defiant Deasy Says He’ll Push
Targeted Spending Plan Anyway
“Posted on June 20, 2013 1:28 pm
“by Hillel Aron
“During Tuesday’s seemingly endless meeting, the LAUSD School Board postponed Board member Tamar Galatzan’s resolution to have new State education funds flow to schools with large numbers of low-income and English language learning students and approved Board member Bennett Kayser’s resolution calling for the district to hire more staff across the board.
“The votes seemed like a loss for LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy, who had floated the idea of having new funding flow where it was needed most (along the lines of the Galatzan resolution) and had opposed the idea of hiring more staff.
“But on Wednesday a defiant Deasy told LA School Report that his plan for future spending will include the spirit of Galatzan’s resolution anyway:
“ ‘The Board voted down the directive to have me come and do it,’ said Deasy, referring to Galatzan’s local spending resolution. ‘ [But] they can’t stop me from doing it; we’re doing it anyway. If they had voted to prevent me from doing it… well they didn’t think of that.’
“The Superintendent explained that the future spending plan the Board ordered him to produce will comply with the Board-passed Kayser resolution regarding staffing (or as Deasy derisively called it, a ‘directive to hire every human being on the West Coast’ ) but will also include some form of the local spending plan he and Galaztan have been advocating.
————————————————
There’s a great COMMENT from Robert Skeels
accompanying and BELOW this article:
—————————————————–
ROBERT SKEELS:
“Once again this Superintendent proves he values profits over pupils. Rather than address the abjectly overflowing class sizes that have students sitting on the floor and windowsills, Deasy chooses to direct funds to Rupert Murdoch’s DIBBELS®, Laurene Powell Jobs’ iPads, and John Fallon’s textbooks. Students need access to books and the world of literature, not distracting toys designed for playing Angry Birds.
“Deasy was already shunting Title I and Title III funds to corporate profits, and LCFF essentially gives him a blank check to stuff more money into the pockets of the people that put him in power. Meanwhile LAUSD students are denied an education that would provide them the critical thinking skills to change a sick world that would allow a former Gates Foundation executive to run an urban school district.”
—————————
… followed up by another great comment
from one “Chance LaRue”:
—————————————
CHANCE LaRUE:
“This is all true, Mr. Skeels, but Deasy wants to destroy LAUSD. This is his agenda, because Gates, Broad, Walton and the rest of these greed corporate thugs have more than trillion dollar signs .in their eyes as they commandeer public education. They see a next generation of compliant consumers and wage slaves. Everything these people do is about enriching themselves. They sport black holes, where their souls ought to be.”
LikeLike