Zahira Torres and Howard Blume wrote a blockbuster assessment of John Deasy’s tumultuous tenure as superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School
District. Being good reporters, they bent over backwards to tell this sordid tale without rendering judgment. But the facts they present are damning. They were largely gathered from Deasy’s travel and expense records, which the reporters obtained by a Freedom of Information request.
1. He had a heavy travel schedule, which took him away from the district for 200 days. His travels interfered with his responsibilities.
“At key moments of tumult in the district, the records show, Deasy was simply not in town….
“The beginning of the end came a year ago, just before the school year started. Deasy was in New York to discuss challenges threatening education reform.
“Back at home, the city’s public schools were in disarray. By the time Deasy returned for the first day of classes, a malfunctioning scheduling system had forced students into gyms and auditoriums to await assignments. Some of them ended up in the wrong courses, putting their path to graduation in jeopardy.
“Two months later, in October, a Superior Court judge ordered state education officials to meet with Deasy to fix the scheduling problems that he said deprived students of their right to an education. But Deasy flew to South Korea the next morning to visit schools and meet government officials. A week later, he resigned, under pressure, as head of the nation’s second-largest school system.”
2. He spent lavishly on travel and meals; foundations with their own agenda subsidized his expenses.
“Deasy, who was paid $350,000 a year as superintendent, took more than 100 trips, spent generously on meals as he lobbied state and national lawmakers and wooed unions, foundations and educational leaders, according to credit card receipts, calendars and emails obtained under the California Public Records Act.
“Deasy spent about $167,000 on airfare, hotels, meals and entertainment during his tenure; half paid by philanthropists and foundations, and the other half by the district. Private foundations often make contributions to school districts, and the LAUSD’s position is that those funds can be used for the superintendent’s expenses.
“Among the philanthropists who subsidized his expenses, according to district records, were entertainment executive Casey Wasserman and Eli Broad, both of whom support education causes through their foundations.
“Deasy attended conferences and held meetings in cities including Boston, New York City, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The tab for an evening with teachers union officers at Drago Centro in Los Angeles ran to more than $1,000. During a one-night stay at the Four Seasons hotel in New York, for which he spent $900, he met, among others, Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs and president of the Emerson Collective, which awards grants and invests in education initiatives.”
3. Deasy was hired without a national search. “Influential philanthropists” and then-Mayor Villaraigosa selected Deasy. We may safely assume that Eli Broadwas one of those influential philanthropists.
4. Deasy’s pals in Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and those “influential philanthropists” poured millions into school board elections to defeat Deasy critics and elect Deasy allies.
“Groups with ties to Silicon Valley and Wall Street have played growing roles in the education reform movement by donating to school board candidates. The Emerson Collective, along with Broad and others, put hundreds of thousands of dollars into campaigns for board members who supported Deasy’s goals.”
5. Despite his large salary, Deasy asked his powerful friends to pay for some of his expenses. Here is one example, that a tuay sounds humiliating to Deasy, who extends a begging bowl to Eli Broad.
“Some board members said they also worried that by requesting and accepting reimbursement for travel from Wasserman, Broad and others who supported his reform efforts, Deasy was creating the perception that he might give a special hearing to those donors.
“In an email, for example, Deasy sought a “scholarship” from Broad to attend a dinner in New York honoring two education leaders who shared his vision for turning around troubled school districts.
“Would Eli support my attendance at an event?” Deasy wrote in October 2011 to Gregory McGinity, a senior official with the Broad Foundation. “I do not have such means to buy the ticket myself…. Do you think he would ‘scholarship’ me?”
“The Broad Foundation reimbursed the district $1,400 for Deasy’s airfare and hotel. A board member of the Aspen Institute, a nonpartisan think tank hosting the event, covered the superintendent’s $1,500 ticket for the dinner, according to the email.”
6. Deasy’s iPad fiasco was a disaster that is now being investigated by the FBI.
“Deasy’s signature effort to provide iPads to all students failed, and the cost of untangling the troubled student records system has now topped $200 million.”
7. Deasy had to go not only because of the iPad mess and the disaster with the district’s computer programming, but because he testified for the plaintiffs when LAUSD was sued in the Vergara case, instead of testifying for the district he led.
“Board President Steve Zimmer said Deasy’s confrontational approach reached a breaking point for him when the superintendent became a star witness for the plaintiffs in Vergara vs. California.
“That case, now on appeal, was heralded by national school reformers for making it easier to fire teachers and ending the current practice of layoffs based on seniority. It angered teachers who believed that they were under constant attack from the superintendent, who did not consult the board about the litigation.
“Once he chose to do what he did in the way that he did it, I knew I could no longer support his superintendency,” Zimmer said. “There was no reason he had to be on that stand.”
And where does Deasy work now? For Eli Broad, training school district leaders based on his own experience as a leader of the reform movement.
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé.
Deasy is not only being investigated by the FBI, but the SEC is also investigating his potential bid rigging with the iPad contracts with Apple and Pearson. Remember that Martha Stewart did jail time for spending her own $250,000 to buy stock with insider trading info….and here is Deasy possibly attempting to spend $1.3 billion of the public’s money to buy iPads and software, and rig the bids for his old boss at Apple, and Aquino’s old boss at Pearson. No one mentions Asst Supt Aquino but he also is a culpable agent of Deasy and the BoE for this whole scheme.
Deasy’s grandiose lifestyle was obvious to all, but the BoE did not put a stop to it. The community is worried that the BoE will now hire a clone of Deasy, another Broad Academy graduate as the new Supt. It might even be the new Asst Supt appointed by interim Supt Cortines, Thelma Melendez, an outspoken cheer leader for charter schools.
Since it was on the Cortines watch that Deasy was initially hired, and since Cortines is still on this hiring committee, people wonder if he could be once again be pushed by Eli Broad, the billionaire who brought Deasy into the district in the first place. There are now two charter school supporters on the BoE, Rodriguez and Garcia, and with past history of the weak and waffling Vladovic and Zimmer, we are holding our collective breath as to how this will go. We know that educators Ratliff and Schmerelson will stand strong for public schools, but we are hoping that educator McKenna votes with them.
Many have called for independent citizen participation to help seek the candidates and to vet them…and so far all the BoE response is hyperbole. I hope the LA Times is as focused on this search as they are on supporting the charter push by Broad.
As to former mayor Villraigosa who is running to be our next Governor, he still toadies to the powerful Broad and still raises a loud voice in favor of charter schools.
Diane…I worry that the Beutner run LA Times, did not do an even handed report on Deasy, as with the good stock photos they chose to use, and the almost giggly reports of his behaviors, but rather that they are validating him and setting him up as a flawed hero now that Eli has once again appointed him the front man for this takeover of our public schools. It is Eli thumbing his nose at us all with his self declared goal of “always winning.”
Someone did a “Ten Stupidest Things Arne Duncan Said” a while ago.
Perhaps the same thing could be done for L.A. Schools Superintendent John Deasy. Here’s a good start.
Go to Deasy’s interview last month (Sepember 2014) with Tavis Smiley:
—————————–
Dr. John Deasy, LAUSD Superintendent | Interviews | Tavis Smiley | PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/john-deasy-2/
The quote is at —
03:52 – 04:29
(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 contributions teachers make…”
—————————————————–
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 only and real 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? They’re all just corrupt, defenders of a failed status quo putting their own adult self-interest ahead of the children that they’re failing to teach!
Thank God we have John Deasy to take them on!
Deasy 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.
That’s why Teach For America, and TNTP, and all similar groups get millions and millions of dollars of corporate backing. This fits right in with the long-term plan of the Billionaire Boys Club—Bill Gates, Eli Broad, the Walton family, etc.—to destroy the teaching profession, and privatize public education… taking it from the public commons where it is accountable and transparent to the public via democratically-elected school boards, and put it under the control of private interests who are NOT accountable to the public, not transparent to the public, and who don’t educate all the public—i.e. the most costly and difficult kids to educate… Special Ed, English Language Learners, kids in high poverty, homeless, foster care, 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.
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 deserve, 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… he’s also carrying out his corporate masters’ marching orders in his targeting of veteran teachers.
When you need a truant officer for the superintendent, that’s not good.
At least Eli Broad kept Deasy on a diamond studded lease.
Just another ‘scholarship’ minus the scholar, meaning he is on a Broadship.
I thought he was on a sinkingship
Sleazy Deasy conspicuous consumer of public dollars!
Finally la times reports what teachers have been telling them all along, Dz was a hired gun for the corporTe agenda and he utilized public funds for his and their private gain. Yes, he should be charged with criminal conduct in his misuse of public funds. The LAUSD BOE should be sited for failure to perform its job of oversight and protection of the school district. Funny, but the only people yelling foul about this public malfeasance was LAUSD teachers who for the most part were punished by being wrongfully targeted,put I teacher jail and forced out of the district. Where is the justice for them?
And what about the public scolding pf a substitute reviewing class rules as instructed by the contract teacher? never mind that this lesson was about establishing order so one can teach with rigor the next 178 days. According to the supe, rigor starts immediately. This showed his naivete as did the sloppy roll out of I Pads. One semester running a candy sale in the East Bronx taught me more about how to handle tablet distribution than he seemed to be aware of. Furthermore, the tablet choice was about satisfying Apple and Pearson than education. There are open-source materials on the internet and less expensive tablets. And tech support is pretty much non-exsistent unless the teacher wants to stop and start lessons while waiting for district hired support to show up, or is able to locate a volunteer to come in on his/her conference period, or gives kids alternate assignments so the teacher can fix things.
Did he have any idea about the classrooms in his district at all? Did he care about the taxpayers who footed his “boldness” and social climbing.
Deasy okayed the deal with Apple for obsolete iPads at a cost over retail at stores such as Best Buy. And he paid a fortune to Pearson up front for software that had not even been designed, and thereafter was not delivered. The BoE is embroiled in more costly legal battles now to get out of these possibly fraudulent contracts and possible bid rigging. It has cost the taxpayers, along with the other Deasy mistakes, close to the whole billion dollars Deasy took from the Construction Bond funds…which may also be illegal.
This snakepit of disfunction at LAUSD, caused by Deasy and Aquino, with the lack of oversight by the BoE…..should have been clearly reported on by the LA Times. It was KPCC reporter Annie Gilbertson who first broke the story however.
At http://www.perdaily.com we have been writing about Deasy and Cortines’ alternate corrupt privatization reality for the last 5 years, while Howard Blum of the Times scrupulously ignored it. Try going to perdaily and searching Deasy and look at what we knew and when. But Professor Ravitch you eloquently pointed out on the Tavis Smiley Show that tenure was not a right to a lifetime job but only a right to due process…but then you neglected to mention that even tenured teachers don’t get due process in a world where 93 % of unjustly targeted teachers are at the top of the salary scale. Why didn’t you testify in Vergara? Why is the depth of what you, Howard Blum, and AFT’S Randi Weingarten know never part of the public dialogue that is ceded to morally challenged folk like Broad and Gates owned Deasy an Cortines?
Leonard, I was not invited to testify in the Vergara trial. I have signed an amicus brief in the next round.
Very smart lady with huge following can always get an invite. Do you really need a press agent to get beyond preaching to the choir? If Mark Geragos can get media for falsely targeted teacher Rafe Esquith, what might Ravitch do? If mainstream America knew 10% of what you know the move to privatize public education for money with charters would be over like it just might be in Washington state. Where the lives of children are concerned, you’re not to old to be a pushy broad for the right reason.
Thanks, Leonard. I write, I speak, I blog, I do whatever I can. I don’t know how to do anymore.
5,000 veteran teachers, at least, have been forced out in L.A. AFT spends its money on “organizing” L.A. charter school teachers whose rights to due process are not addressed in any manner in the California State Education Code. AFT is doing this for market share and NEA is silent. Why do our leaders co-operate in the destruction of our profession?
“Deasy left a mixed legacy.” Really?
John…Deasy claimed success for a better graduation rate, when it actually resulted from directions instituted before his reign as Supt. In addition to be a gifted free loader and a mendacious and dangerous Broadie, he was superb at reporting the achievements of others as his own.
Deasy’s not alone in terms of a failed career. Ramon Cortines, the grand old man of public education has been at 9 districts during his mediocre career.Not one of these districts is any better today than it was when he started. And yet this morally challenged person with an open $150,000 conflict of interest with Scholastics is the best LAUSD can find to get rid of Deasy. With all the supposed investigations into these two jokers, let’s see if any of them ever come to fruition.
John Deasy. Graduation rates. Believe it—or don’t!
Excerpts from a Howard Blume piece in the LATIMES:
[start]
The Los Angeles Unified School District on Friday reported a huge rise in its graduation rate, but left out the students most at risk of not making it to commencement ceremonies.
The district’s graduation rate of 77% for the 2013-14 school year was 12 percentage points better than last year, the largest one-year increase under a tracking system that dates from the 2006-07 school year.
The improvement is especially impressive because ongoing statistical gains typically become more difficult to sustain and surpass year after year.
…
In a statement, L.A. schools Supt. John Deasy hailed “a historic high.”
…
But the good news comes with a substantial caveat. The rate is calculated based on students enrolled in comprehensive high schools, and it leaves out students who transfer to alternative programs — which frequently include those most at risk of dropping out.
…
Once the alternative campuses are factored in, L.A. Unified’s rate drops to 67% — much less impressive but still surpassing what the district has accomplished in recent history. The previous year’s rate of 65% also did not include students in such programs.
[end]
Link: http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-1004-lausd-grad-rates-20141003-story.html
Don’t trust my excerpts? Read the entire piece.
So 77% is really 67% which is just a 2% increase, not a 12% increase. Those pesky ‘graduation rate’ suppressors are just such a nuisance!
Riffing off one of those Marxist axioms that rheephormsters are so proud of, rheephorm math is to math what military music is to music.
Groucho would be so proud that folks like Deasy and Broad carry on his work with such fidelity.
😎
Touting a supposed rise in LAUSD’s high school graduation rate is patently absurd and blatantly dishonest. Why? Because Deasy and Cortines both had administrators intimidate teachers into fixing grades and the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) test results, if they didn’t want to be targeted for termination on false charges as has been the faith of thousands of top of the salary scale teachers.
Can I prove it? Absolutely. Give me one other possible explanation as to why students who supposedly passed all their high school classes and the CAHSEE fail the junior college entrance examination based on the same materials they supposedly mastered in high school at a rate of 75% of all entering junior college students. They then take remedial course until the majority of them become disheartened and drop out of school.
Although the cheating has been documented in Washington, D.C. under (in)famous Michelle Rhee and recently in the South, somehow the corporate owned media in support of Eli Broad’s privatization-of-public-education-for-money agenda never seem willing to cover this story.
And under Cortines’ leadership, the grads do not have to take the standard test to get a diploma….which raises the grad rate. And now the BoE went along with Cortines to change the grade rates to A – G with D as passing. Speak of dumbing down.
from the TIMES article:
“Influential philanthropists — along with former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa — leaned on school board members to bypass a national search and hire Deasy because they believed that then-Supt. Ramon C. Cortines was not moving fast enough.”
Exactly why should “influential philanthropists” have more say over Los Angeles’ children’s education than the Los Angeles children themselves, or more say than Los Angeles’ citizen-taxpayers?
The parents and citizens of Los Angeles are the ones who will suffer—and under Deasy, most certainly DID suffer—from the ill-advised prescriptions these “influential philanthropists”—via their puppet Deasy—visited upon the schools and communities of Los Angeles.
These “individual philanthropists” should butt out.
The very name “philanthropist” is bastardized here.
Corporate reform’s bought-and-paid-for
Monica Garcia welcomes charter expansion,
and dismisses the damage it will do to existing
system of public schools, because regarding that
system… she “hope(s) that system ends.”
She contrasts the charters, as a “one system emerging is a
learning organization that meets the needs of kids” with
the traditional public schools as a “the system that didn’t serve
(students) as well. I, too, hope it ends.”
http://laschoolreport.com/garcia-welcomes-foundations-promoting-charter-school-expansion/
L.A. SCHOOL REPORT:
——————————————–
(Garcia) also doesn’t believe more charter schools will spell the end of LAUSD.
“A successful LA Unified cannot be over, we will only get stronger (with charters comprising 50% or more of LAUSD),” García said. “We’ve had people talk about one system dying and one system emerging. That one system emerging is a learning organization that meets the needs of kids. The (old) system that didn’t serve (kids) as well. I, too, hope it ends.”
…
“I would go to any philanthropic arm and say ‘Please invest in our kids,’” García said. “We have many, many good strategies that need support.”
Her sentiments come in sharp contrast to other board members who view the proposed expansion with skepticism or even as a threat for the possibility that it would drain public dollars from the district’s traditional schools.
Board president Steve Zimmer told the LA Times last week that an aggressive expansion of charters could undermine the district’s own improvement efforts, saying, “The most critical concern would be the collateral damage to the children left behind.”
————————————————–
————————————————-
Indeed, “invest”?
In reading the first set of quotes from LAUSD Board Member Monica Garcia, what strikes me is that Garcia doesn’t even grasp how contradictory and downright idiotic that her own rhetoric is. (The two words I put in CAPITALS are contradictory)
“I would go to any PHILANTHROPIC arm and say ‘Please INVEST in our kids,’ ” García said.”
“Philanthropic” actions are the exact opposite of “investing.” Philanthropy—literally meaning “the love of humanity”—is charity, OR voluntary giving of help to those in need, as a humanitarian act.
Philanthropy is most certainly not the capitalist concept of “investing”—which is basically the “love of money”—as the philanthropist, unlike the “investor,” neither desires nor expects a monetary return on the money he donates, nor does he demand control over any organization to which he donates money.
Broad, Walton, and the rest have been called “vulture philanthropists.”
To bridge this contradiction, Broad and others have sometimes resorted to calling themselves “philanthropreneurs”—what they believe is a benign descriptor of their predatory activities.
I mean… really! “philanthropreneurs” ??? Seriously?
That word is an oxymoronic mash-up of “philanthropist” and “entreprenuer”. That’s like describing a geometric figure as is a “square circle.” You’re either one or the other. You can’t be both.
You’re either…
— a “philanthropist” whose motives are selfless and lack any desire for person gain or control,
or you’re…
— an “entrepreneur” who’s motives are selfish and out for personal gain or control.
You can’t be both.
————————————————-
Meanwhile, Zimmer gave an interview
with JEWISH JOURNAL. He pulls no punches,
saying that Eli Broad’s massive expansion
of privately-run charter schools not about
just adding charters schools; it is actually
an attack on public schools that will have
“collateral damage for kids.” It’s it’s also about
“changing the idea of what public education is”
for the worse.
Unfortunately, he doesn’t use the words “privatize”
or “privatization”
He also says this charter expansion is also an attack
on unions as well. The people and organizations
funding it are the same people and organizations
who have a goal of wiping out unions.
Broad’s charter expansion, Zimmer says, “is not about children.”
Here’s the linlk:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/education/article/lausd_board_president_steve_zimmer_talks_about_getting_back_to_basics
Some highlights:
————————
STEVE ZIMMER: “I think there is a difference between support for existing charter schools that parents have chosen [and support more for new charter schools]. I respect and support those choices as long as the charter is doing very well, and I mean very well.”
JEWISH JOURNAL: “Why a different bar for charter schools?”
STEVE ZIMMER: “Because that’s why charters are supposed to exist: either to provide something better, or unique and innovative. Otherwise there’s no compelling reason to authorize them.”
JEWISH JOURNAL: “Do you think there’s any chance to roll back the charter trend?”
STEVE ZIMMER: “We have the most charters of any school district in the nation. We have incredibly high levels of saturation. If choice is so important, the California Charter Schools Association’s agenda and the Walton Family Foundation and other foundations’ agendas to situate more and more charter schools within the LAUSD boundary is not about children. It’s not about choice. It’s not about innovation.
“It’s about a very different agenda of bringing down the school district, an agenda to dramatically change what is public education.
“It’s about altering the influence of public sector unions. I just happen to disagree with that agenda. But (pro-charter) folks should be explicit about what their agenda is.”
JEWISH JOURNAL: “It seems like a lot of the dialogue relating to LAUSD pits teacher against student. If something is good for students, it’s bad for teachers and vice versa.”
STEVE ZIMMER: “How it’s said in my world is whether you have a kid agenda or an adult agenda. That is an incredibly deceptive political construct. Anybody who has spent their career in public school knows that’s a lie. When you’re supporting teachers, you’re supporting kids. When you create a better environment for learning, you’re supporting kids and everyone who works with them.
“That lie — kids versus adults — that lie is a subterfuge about what part of the reform movement is about, which is eviscerating or lessening the influence of public sector unions. A lot of that is focused on teacher unions. Teacher unions are teachers. I’ve been very critical of my own union and the union I consider to be an ally. [But] there’s a difference between being critical of different policies of a labor union, and believing that union should not exist.
“And a lot of money that fuels the charter and reform movement is by people who believe teacher unions should not exist.”
(then later)
STEVE ZIMMER: “I’m actually very proud we have some of the highest-performing charters in the country. It takes a lot for me to not renew or to close down an existing charter. But at the point we’re at, a new charter has to be compelling. It has to offer something we don’t have right now, and that is a high bar. I am unapologetic about it.
“I believe in choice, but I am very, very wary. I am very cognizant of the damage that competition (from charter expansion) has done to our schools. And we became obsessed with data instead of being data-informed. When a system becomes so obsessed with competition that they view children through their potential to score versus their overall humanity, the dehumanization of that public school system is not something that is attractive to parents, is not something that is warm and inviting. And our public schools, to my great regret, have become test score-obsessed. A lot of charter schools have, too.”
Here is just one of thousands of articles about vulture philantharopy:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/skollworldforum/2013/07/30/why-impact-investing-is-an-emerging-paradigm-shift-in-philanthropy/
They’re bastardizing the terms and concepts of “philanthropy”, “philanthropic,” “philanthropist,” etc. This “Impact investing” is nothing but ruthless capitalism covered the thinnest veneer of social responsibility and “charity”.
FROM THE ARTICLE: (Note the capitalization)
——————————————–
“Attached to all this fervor is a fair amount of confusion about what impact investing actually represents. Is it investment, philanthropy or both? Simply put, impact investing is THE DEPLOYMENT OF CAPITAL WITH AN EXPECTATION OF FINANCIAL RETURN, where the success of the investment is also contingent upon achieving a stated social or environmental goal. For example, at JPMorgan Chase we are committing capital—more than $50 million to date—to private equity funds THAT WILL DELIVER US AN APPROPRIATE FINANCIAL RETURN while simultaneously improving livelihoods for underserved populations around the world.”
===========================================
I mean, come on… “deliver us an appropriate financial return”… this is not “philanthropy” by any current or past definition.
In Eli Broad’s and the billionaires’ approach hostile takeover of education, it allows them to make the specious argument:
“Sure, we’re making millions off this ‘education reform’, ‘reforms’ that allow us to seize control of hundreds of millions of the public’s tax dollars, and control over massive school districts / schools with absolutely no oversight, transparency or accountability from the public who are kicking on those tax dollars…
” … but we’re also helping improve the education of poor black and brown children at the same time… so that means EVERYBODY WINS, and that means our profiteering really is ‘philanthropy’ and that makes it okay!”
Those millions should go to the classroom, not into the pockets of hedge fund managers, or the bank accounts of money-motivated charter honchos like Eva Moskowitz ($ 600,000 / year). Once all of this is exposed to the public, they’ll feel and think the same way, and resist such “reform.”
Leonard, you need to be invited to testify at a trial, Dr. Ravitch was not on the witness list.
Exactly! It’s not like Perry Mason or something where people just wander in and shout, “I did it!” or whatever. To accuse Diane of not helping because she didn’t testify at a trial she could NOT testify at is pretty galling.
I thought the L.A. Times was overly kind to Deasy. In addition to the issues raised above, there was his sledgehammer approach to Miramonte. Yes, the crime committed was heinous – but the response was nonsensical. Every single staff member, every single one, was forced off their job, forced to sit in an empty school, doing NOTHING. No one came to interview them. No one asked their thoughts on how such a tragedy could come about. Nada. Nothing accomplished. What a waste of time, money, and opportunity. Every thing was done for the benefit of the image of Deasy.
Melissa….Please read my online article printed last year by City Watch Today titled LA Times Love Affair with John Deasy. I have written here ad nauseum about the LA Times ties to Eli Broad with whom they collude,and his puppets, John Deasy and Ben Austin. It drove Karin Klein and the editorial staff up the wall as you will see in many comments there.
Just google City Watch Today, and my name, and it will appear.
NOTICE and GOOD NEWS…. after I have also written about CEO/Publisher of the LA Times, Austin Beutner for over a year, today he got the ax. News reports on NPR/KPCC claim he was FIRED by the Tribune. And it was only a week ago that he used an entire page to laud Eli Broad and charter schools.
Sometimes something goes right. Whadda ya know?
So what is new about any of this for Howard Blume of the L.A. Times? And why is he only reporting it now? There is a great deal more equally damning information that Blume and other “reporters” have chosen not to report in order to keep their jobs. Like the war on teachers at the top of the salary scale that garners LAUSD $60,000 in saved salary and benefits for every one of these senior teachers that LAUSD gets rid of on trumped up charges…but nobody in the media is talking.