This is rich. The LA Times supported John Deasy’s every move when he was superintendent and ranked out his critics. Now the editorial board turns against him and says he had big visions but no follow through. It even calls Deasy’s $1.3 billion iPad plan a “fiasco.”
Says the editorial:
“What became apparent over time, though, was that setting high-profile goals was only one part of the job; where Deasy stumbled was in getting down to the unglamorous work of making those dreams come true through meticulous planning, accounting for contingencies and addressing valid concerns raised by others.
“As a result, Deasy left a legacy of big, bold plans but too few accomplishments. The iPads-for-all policy could reasonably be called a fiasco. The district was lambasted in independent investigations for buying problematic educational software and having little idea of how the new technology would even be used in classrooms. The college-prep graduation requirements had to be rolled back because they were imposed with little planning for how students would pass the necessary classes. Instead of fixing the district’s dysfunctional student scheduling system known as MISIS, he supported a lawsuit blaming the state for it.
“Too often, Deasy’s urgency meant that sweeping new policies were dumped in teachers’ laps without the support, explanation and assistance needed to make them work. Teachers’ concerns were too often dismissed as an unwillingness to change.”

Needless to say, this is an about face for them. Perhaps they have more rational members of the board. If they can recognize this, why can’t they see charterizing LAUSD is also a big mistake. Hindsight tells you reform is deform. LA times, join the fight to save public schools
LikeLike
Paula: Writing online can lead to unintended readings, so please be assured that I sincerely admire your hopeful and forgiving comments, however…
What is missing is even a hint of the responsibility that the LATIMES has for helping push through, defend, and actively build support for policies and actions that they now claim, e.g., re iPads that “could reasonably be called a fiasco.”
Just look at it this way: during the John Deasy interregnum, for years they sat on Pulitzer Prize winning stories that involved the City of Angeles and the iconic computer company Apple and hundreds of millions of dollars and abuse of power by those in high places and likely fraud on a massive scale and the beat goes on…
And what did they do when it meant something to do the right journalistic thing? Following the advice of the NJ Comm. of Ed., they doubled down on whatevers. Meaning, the more Deasy pushed fiascos the more ferociously the newspaper defended him against his critics and ensured that predictable and avoidable train wrecks would occur with as little public pushback as possible.
IMHO, this editorial is a clumsy and self-serving attempt to rewrite history. And a shameful one.
I know this is harsh, but the editorial belongs in the archives of their comrades of the now-vanished Soviet Union’s PRAVDA.
But again, I commend you for taking the high road.
😎
LikeLike
Krazy and Paula..and Diane….whenever the Times seems to use soft wording, some folks think they have come around to our way of reasoning. NOT!!!
The LA Times is firmly in the corner of Eli Broad, Richard Riordan, the Waltons, the Lyntons, and all the Deformers. In this instance of the editorial seeming to deride Deasy…a teeny bit…they may be cutting back to protect themselves. They may know more than the public about the outcome of the FBI and SEC investigation…and maybe they are starting to back pedal to save face Just sayin’…..
LikeLike
I have to agree with Ellen. This seemed like an excuse to tout reformers like Deasy for having a meaningful and worthwhile vision for education, but just failing to implement, to execute. What a shame their great intentions were lost on the teachers and our evil unions. And the last decade of experience with the LAT and Tribune Co teaches us to never, ever, never trust or believe them.
LikeLike
Yeah – I’m with Krazy TA on this one. They were resolute in supporting Deasy, accusing teachers of intransigence and resistance to change when we raised legitimate concerns. Now we are whining, according to them yesterday, for raising legitimate concerns about charters. They led the parade for VAM and tying our job rating to test scores, going so far as to publish the ratings on line, even though so many experts said it was unfair and unsound. They’ve been called out by journalists across the country for allowing Eli Broad to purchase their education reporting. So no, I do not think they have more rational editors. I think this is a self-serving, forget about every thing we’ve done that was proven wrong, and NOW believe us when we claim charters are just dandy.
LikeLike
Instead, I think this is their way of making Mr. Deasy look like a bad apple whose failure is confined to himself. Rather than a symptom of a larger problem.
LikeLike
Granted, I don’t have time to keep up with it in detail, but isn’t this editorial more likely simply to indicate that Broad wants to distance himself from Deasy? I mean, they bashed teachers just, what, yesterday, about “whining” about charters or something?
LikeLike
No one has demanded that John Deasy return his monumental salary, nor his perks, nor the vast amount of money he wasted on the iPads, on MiSiS, on the hundreds of lawsuits over his lousy decisions on so many issues such as jailing all the teachers because of the felony committed by one. Now the district has a huge shortfall in the budget and they are looking at cutting hundreds of jobs including teachers and staff. But no where have I found information that they will fire at least half (my personal suggestion) of the dead wood at Beaudry where the nepotism and waste is rampant. It is all the middle managers (non-teachers), many related, who sit around devising bad ideas based on their own inabilities to govern LAUSD. This is where the fat is…and this is where the firings should start, not in the classrooms.
BTW…the hugely expensive Beverly Hills fraud lawyer who Deasy hired to represent him when he resigned and got the BoE to not charge him with anything, was paid by whom??? Eli Broad??? And speaking of RICO…. If the FBI and the SEC find Deasy committed felonies, however, this agreement would be null and void and Deasy could still go to the Federal Penitentiary.
Who at LAUSD decided to hire the past senior employee of the California Charter School Association and former senior employee of the multi millionaire new BoE member, Rodriguez (with his 16 PUC charter schools) to be the overseer of LAUSD charter schools? Is there a sane rational person at Beaudry who can and will explain how this biased charter supporter/employee will be a fair evaluator of charters in LA, once again on the taxpayers dollars?
Somewhere there must be smart and tough enough lawyers (not dominated by Eli Broad which so many of the most powerful LA law firms are) to address the mismanagement and costs incurred by John Deasy, who was then, and still is, the main protege of Broad. Broad honored Deasy by immediately hiring him as his Supt. in Residence at the Broad Academy, and is now using him to institute charters, push for parent trigger, and mainly to help districts nationwide file Vergara-like lawsuits to kill due process for educators, while bringing down all unions.
I know I often sound like a one-note commentator, but feel that we on the ground in So. California must keep reminding the world that Eli Broad is the anti-Christ…and his helpers are cut from his own fetid cloth.
LikeLike
Delete Deasy’s name and add a couple of other names and we get the same truth.
Too often, David Coleman and Bill Gates’s urgency meant that sweeping new policies were dumped in teachers’ laps without the support, explanation and assistance needed to make them work. Teachers’ concerns were too often dismissed as an unwillingness to change.
Any other names you want to plug into that paragraph?
LikeLike
The name of each member of the school board. (Schools committee)
LikeLike
Yes, some school boards like the one in Denver, and too many governors who were elected thanks to money pouring in from the likes of Bill Gates, the Waltons, Eli Broad, The Koch brothers etc. and some state legislatures. The list is long. The fraudsters have had decades to get to this point—to put America on the auction block to bring about the death of a republic.
It’s even arguable that four and/or five members of the U.S. Supreme court deserve to be on that list.
LikeLike
“Reformergency”
Reformer’s urgency
Is plain for all to see
To dump in lap
Reformer crap
And make the teachers flee
LikeLike
And some will flee with fleas but many will stand and fight instead of take flight.
LikeLike
This quote is just rich:
I hope that if teachers have concerns about possible decisions to transition half of the schools to charter schools that they won’t be dismissed as an unwillingness to change.
LikeLike
Teachers, falsely accused as, “unwilling to change”- Someone should tell the Canadian Microsoft executive, quoted in the May issue of Entrepreneur, who said, “They should shift or get off of the pot.” A comment that is crude, unprofessional, self-serving and fails to recognize the duty that a professional has, to the people that rely on his/her expertise.
But then, the executive’s linked-in profile shows what we know about Bill Gates- no experience teaching nor in a classroom. Both, with grandiosity, appointed themselves as “education partners.”
LikeLike
This blaming teachers for an unwillingness to change when the teachers reject stupid ideas and poor implementation is the refuge of know-nothings. Perhaps instead of blaming teachers when resistance presents itself, these people with “great vision” could bother educating themselves and ask why there is resistence. Maybe they would learn that teachers continually deal with change and many of the ideas brought forth have been tried and failed. They might also learn how to better implement the really good ideas. A second year teacher in L. A. could have anticipated the problems with the IPad roll out. Of course, the IPad business was just that–business. A generic tablet and open source material would work for providing lessons. The only reason for IPads was Pearson.
LikeLike
Do they mean like teachers’ concerns about VAM and all the testing mathturbation?
LikeLike
The link is not to the editorial mentioned above.
LikeLike
Raj, you are right. I fixed the link. Thanks!
LikeLike
yet another claim that “it’s not the ideas and policies that were bad but only the implementation”.
“Stating the Obvious”
The LA Times has spoken
The obvious is true
The LA Times is broken
And NY Times is too
LikeLike
We in LA saw the train wreck coming but the intimidation tactics made it hard to push badk. I called it Beatership. Many of us knew here at 333 S. Beaudry.
I’m not sure about the nepotism and waste issue as I feel like a survivor, LAUSD. We try and hold back the worst decisions from being made while trying to support school sites.
Most folks I work with are dedicated and hardworking. We need to stick together and stop turning on each other and focus on the folks really doing the harm.
LikeLike
Delia…I apologize to the many hard workers at Beaudry who do indeed “hold back (against) the worst decisions”…and I laud you all who fight this deadly fight on a daily basis. I have heard how demoralizing this is.
I mentioned, yes, rather harshly, the figure of 50% who may not have your ability, dedication and motives…and it is an arbitrary figure based first on a study I worked on decades ago showing the hiring practices then, and also the many areas at LAUSD that have not functioned optimally for a long time. The LA Times has actually written about all this over the past few months. they delineated the many Supts. and the differing management styles from Romer, to the Admiral, to Deasy.
However, this new shakeup and push for over 50% Broad privatizing was exacerbated by Deasy’s anointed appointment by Broad and Villaraigosa…and the many Broadies who they brought in for support staff, and those still on staff despite Cortines getting rid of many.
This is not new news and some years ago with a push by a female City legislator, there was a move to break up the district into more manageable sized smaller districts…certainly to break the SFV away. And now, this issue is again being discussed. It might work better for 7 small districts to function with separate staffs, but that would not seem cost effective…and maybe not even democratic.
LikeLike
And I thought Deasy had managed to fire all the good ones. I’m glad you’re still there, Della. We’re supposed to be on the same team, after all.
LikeLike
Duncan gave a speech about his legacy today, and it’s weird.
He never mentions the huge expansion of charter schools funded and promoted by the Obama Administration.
http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/unleashing-americas-energy-better-education-legacy-race-top
LikeLike
Touching that Duncan is so pleased with his seven years of disruption, blaming, and finger pointing.
Let’s hope that John King does not start saying “we’re lying to our kids.”
LikeLike
Two decades ago there was a K-8 school in a Massachusetts urban district which
was dedicated to serving homeless students. It was an excellent school filled
with extremely dedicated professionals motivated by an inspirational principal.
Unfortunately the students did not test well. The school closed. When it reopened
with a new name, people wanted to know what happened to the large population
of homeless students. Nobody knew. It was like they didn’t exist anymore.
LikeLike
I’m tempted to say that the failure to introduce and train staff in the new disciplinary policy and techniques was purpose-filled, designed to further the false narrative of failure and out-of-control schools, thereby making it easier for Eli Broad to sell his charter plans. I tend to see the MiSiS crisis through the same lens. If it ain’t broken, break it first. It’s a lot easier to sell the “fix” that way.
LikeLike
Agree with you nbc…but Hill and Chang both worked for Deasy on MiSiS at LAUSD and both knew of the failures…yet Hill was recently hired as Supt at Glendale, and Chang was recently hired as Supt. by Boston. What does that say about the power of the Eli Broad Academy and the grads????
LikeLike
Broad is not just a 500 pound gorilla in LA. Walking around Cambridge this summer I discovered this (just across the street from the Bill Gates student center): https://www.broadinstitute.org
LikeLike
EnbCee, I’ll go one further and say that it is irresponsible to NOT state that all of Deasy’s failed, opulent projects were purposefully designed to destroy from within. To view Deasy as a magnanimous but impatient man who desperately wanted to “lift youth out of poverty” (a pet phrase of his) is to engage in Howard Blume-level fatuousness.
Also, Matt Hill recently became superintendent of Burbank Unified, not Glendale. Though I’m sure his appointment would have faced the same firestorm of parent and teacher protests there as it did in Burbank.
LikeLike
Thanks for the correction…yes, Burbank has charter supporters in excess on their BoE.
And yes, Deasy claimed it all is about civil rights, even his anti teacher testimony during the Vergera trial where he threw teachers ‘under the bus’ and supported the plaintiffs. His remark at the conclusion when the plaintiffs won, was that he could now get back to “firing teachers rapidly in LAUSD.”
LikeLike
I was hoping the Deasy Ipad “fiasco” would slow the massive government/private sector marketing effort to push ed tech in public schools and people would say “maybe it isn’t wise to shove this into every public school in the country before we know how much value it has compared to cost?”
Nope.
I’ll just call it right now. In 5 years we’re going to be hearing it was done poorly, except it will be many, many more schools and many more billions of dollars.
I wonder if the recklessness of ed reform has to do with how many of the “leaders” are extraordinarily wealthy. They can afford risk! We might not be able to, and we’ll be paying for all of it if the experiments fail.
LikeLike
Why hasn’t the LA Times, nor anyone anywhere, mentioned how many terrible choices were put forward by the expensive consultants Cortines and the BoE hired to find a new Supt to replace Deasy?
There are numbers of Deasy clones, and many Broad Academy grads…and even John King who is in Duncan’s role as DOE Charterizer in Chief. And Paul Vallas. And internally, the name of Thelma Melendez appears (who I think will be on the short list) who was appointed by Cortines to be next in line. She too is an Eli Broad girl who graduated with Deasy from the notorious Academy..
Strangely, the only media focus on these 43 names is LASR which is usually in support of Broad and privatizing. Thank you LASR. Guess Howard Blume was not allowed to write about this. But where is KPCC and Annie Gilbertson?
LikeLike
Classic Editorial board blindness.
“It was the right idea, he just blew it in implementation”.
What I’d suggest actually happened based on what I see in corporations is purely political…
1. John Deasy found big ideas he could execute.
2. John Deasy found he could build support for executing those ideas by promising they’d produce results people really wanted.
3. So John Deasy promised that big ideas A would make results B happen.
Except, big ideas A could never, ever deliver results B…
But it’s really hard for an editorial board to grasp this reality. Instead, the LA Times response is classic: “If only…they could have…really! If only they’d been executed better. If only they’d been more patient. If only parents weren’t parents and kids weren’t kids. If only the district was filled with robots. If only…”
It’s a rare senior executive who can dig deep enough to understand the truth…especially if they’ve been trained in a “continual improvement” program like six sigma.
LikeLike
JUST IN: Ratliff exploring LAUSD conversion to a charter district
Posted on November 12, 2015 3:02 pm by Mike Szymansk
Board member Mónica Ratliff
Board member Mónica Ratliff
In what appears to be a strategy to undermine the Broad Foundation’s proposal to move half of district students into charter schools, LA Unified board member Mónica Ratliff is exploring the possibility of turning the entire district into a charter organization.
Part of the agenda of the Nov. 17 meeting of the district’s Budget, Facilities and Audit Committee, which she chairs, is a discussion of a report from district lawyers about the possibility of converting all of LA Unified schools into charters. The report was made public today.
Such a move would immediately address the school board’s chief criticism of the Broad plan, that it’s a “some kids, not all kid’s” approach for improving academic achievement in the district. Ratliff was not available today to discuss the issue, but board president Steve Zimmer suggested that a wholesale charter conversion might not be ideal, given the multitude of challenges currently facing the district. They include finding a new superintendent by the end of the year and resolving mounting financial challenges threatening district insolvency.
“Exploring all options for involving all children is appropriate in this moment,” Zimmer told LA School Report. “However, the complications of chartering an entire district are so immense that I think it is wiser to keep our eyes on the transformative initiatives whose implementation truly needs our attention.”
In the nine-page report — “Establishment of All Charter School District” — district lawyers outlined how an entire school district could convert all of its schools to charters. The process includes approval from at least half the teachers who would be affected, alignment with all state regulations that apply to charter schools and assurance that the petitioner can “successfully implement the program.”
Converting LA Unified into all-charter status would also make the state Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education the overseers of the district, serving in the same capacity as a Charter Management Organization. In effect, the state would have final authority over board decisions.
According to the legal department’s analysis, “The (state board) would have oversight responsibilities over the All Charter Districts” and “oversite fees” of 1 percent of revenues from the all-charter district would be paid to the state.
Included in the legal department’s material is a slightly-out-of-date list of all-charter districts that currently exist in California. At the moment, there are seven, four of them with only one school in the district. The other, Kingsburg Elementary Charter School District, south of Fresno, is the oldest of the group and the largest, now operating with seven schools serving 2,400 students.
By comparison, LA Unified has 1,274 schools.
“We’ve been at it like this for 20 years in all,” said Wesley Sever, superintendent of the Kingsbury district. He said his schools are funded by Fresno County; they receive no private financial support, and the district’s teachers are non-union.
The inquiry by Ratliff, which her office said came from a query from board member Richard Vladovic, seems part of the escalating charter wars that have taken on a new urgency with the Broad proposal, which has been roundly attacked by the teachers union and LA Unified board members opposed to further and rapid charter creation. At the next board meeting, in December, the board will vote on a measure to condemn the Broad plan or any other plan that doesn’t include all students.
Further, Ratliff this week introduced a proposal that would ask for a greater degree of transparency from charter schools, including requirements to comply with state guidelines for open meetings and inform parents about school-related items like traditional school do.
Representatives from the California Charter School Association said they were planning to meet with Ratliff to soften the language of her proposal, but they weren’t aware of this latest query about district conversion.
“There are many ways to break up a school district,” Zimmer said. “This idea is not new. People have talked about this for years, but it has not seemed that it would be particularly realistic.”
LikeLike
The article above just came to me from LASR. This should curl everyone’s hair.
LikeLike
Speechless. Thank you for the info.
LikeLike
Ellen, I found that article surprising too. I don’t know what Ratliff’s point is in bringing it up? Do you? I think extremely unlikely to happen though. Just about impossible. It doesn’t sound like MR is advocating that, just looking into the possibility. But I don’t know why even that?
LikeLike
I was just waiting to see how fast this latest news was going to arrive here. It is amazing. I would like to see how this will change the tone of this blog.
LikeLike
Why would it “change the tone of the blog”?
They’re eradicating the public schools rather than winding them down. Broad’s objective was always to get rid of the public schools. It’s a matter of doing it all at once so the public schools won’t be used as “schools of last resort” rather than over a period of years.
LikeLike
I would like you to change your tone, Raj. You are incessantly insulting, condescending and full of b.s. Please, go change your tone.
LikeLike
Raj, keep on waiting.
No one trusts the LA Times no matter what they say about Deasy.
Yes, it’s better they change their tune about Deasy, but they still remain in the pockets of the Broads.
Now go bore someone else . . . .
LikeLike
Raj,
You are just too naive and clueless. What makes you convinced that newspaper editorial boards are turning the tide? Changing the tone of language IS NOT equal to changing their heart. It is well shown in your last statement. We all know that.
LikeLike
It looks like Eli is looking for a patsy/scapegoat. Deasy will do. It wasn’t Broad’s money. It wasn’t Broad’s puppet-mastering skills pulling Deasy’s every single string. It wasn’t Broad’s “academy” of Stupid-intendents that had anything to do with it. It wasn’t Broad who was/is trying to destroy LA. No, it was Deasy. Don’t look behind the curtain. Keep walking. Nothing to see here.
LikeLike
Donna, after Deasy left Los Angeles Unified, he went to work for Eli Broad.
“Former Los Angeles schools chief John Deasy has accepted a consulting job as superintendent in residence” for a training and coaching program funded by local philanthropist Eli Broad.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-broad-deasy-20150112-story.html
LikeLike
And Donna…Eli must also be galled at the phony deformer who was his prime pet, Michelle Rhee. She and her husband, the Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, who seems to like to fondle underage girls, are now stewing quietly in No. California. Eli knows how to pick the ‘sour’ cream of the crop what with Deasy, Rhee, Austin, and who else?
LikeLike
Lloyd….I know all about the tale of Deasy and Broad. You know I know.
Broad is looking to distance himself and blame Deasy…smoke and mirrors because Broad thinks everyone is stupid, or ignorant, or not paying attention.
And Ellen, indeed. KJ and her royal Rheeness effed up. If only KJ could keep his hands to himself. Alas, Rhee’s ex is smart enough to keep his daughters far away from them.
LikeLike
So did Broad fire Deasy? This editorial was just PR. Billion misspent is not just an implementation problem? It is about ignorance.
LikeLike
It’s obvious that Rhee plans to slither back into the game like cancer making a comeback after it was defeated once with a bone marrow transplant. Rhee should be in court answering for what she did in Washington DC when she was chancellor of the schools. The only explanation is that her billionaire masters are protecting her because she is a loyal assassin.
LikeLike
Donna…it is looking like a replay of Deasy making Aquino fall on his own petard. Maybe Deasy will get the blade between the ribs…maybe as the Feds cart him off to court. Wishful thinking.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
Hindsight doesn’t cover up stupidity on the part of the media. Slowly the NYTimes is writing expose after expose on Success Academy while the editors still gloat over that school. They once in awhile write something negative about Bloomberg without ever saying they fully supported it.
This editorial doesn’t go far enough either. I think the Liberal media is scampering to figure out a way to save face and still support Reforms. The day it finally explodes, it will be editorialized as a small firecracker rather than the atomic bomb that destroyed the education of many generations of children.
LikeLike
The idea that journalists somehow need to “save face” is as bizarre as the idea that they would be “supporting” a particular policy.
In fact, if they were not doing the latter, they would not have to worry about the former.
What happened to the idea that journalists simply investigate and report what they find?
Why would anyone even care about the opinion of someone at the LA Times on education? (Someone who gets paid to have a particular view)
You’d be better off (more likely to get an unbiased answer) asking a random person on the street.
LikeLike
I once again ask for a little care in reporting on the L.A,. Times editorial board coverage of Deasy. It seems with all of the writing here criticizing the media for getting things wrong, this blog should strive for some accuracy.
The editorial board was overall supportive of Deasy’s aims, but it was an early and consistent critic of his iPad proposal. It took a stance against requiring A-G courses, with a C as a minimum grade in each, as a high-school graduation requirement. It altogether criticized the pre-Deasy board resolution to require A-G (without the C average). It criticized him back at the time of the MiSiS lawsuit for supporting the lawsuit while failing to fix the problem. It criticized him for forcing breakfast in the classroom on teachers. It criticized him for suspending a science teacher over a couple of student projects in a science fair.
By all means, disagree with the editorial board’s viewpoints. But please don’t put forward outrageously incorrect statements about the board supporting every one of Deasy’s moves.
LikeLike
Karin,
Thanks for your comment. If I misstated the LA Times’ editorial support for John Deasy, I apologize. I strive for accuracy.
I must say, however, that I take very strong exception to the editorial board’s endorsement of Eli Broad’s plan to take over half the students in the public schools of LAUSD. Don’t you think there should be a referendum before the board makes a decision about whether to privatize so many of those enrolled in public schools? Does Eli Broad get to do whatever he wants just because he is rich? The public paid for the schools, why should he have the power to substitute his judgment for that of the public without going to the voters? Please defend democracy, even if you can’t bring yourself to defend the principles of public education, operated by a democratically elected board.
Those who see the pitfalls of privatization are not “whining,” as one of your recent editorials described them. They were warning about the dangers of allowing private entrepreneurs to take control of a public responsibility and of their often exclusionary policies. If Eli Broad wants to run the schools, let him throw his hat in the ring to be the next superintendent.
LikeLike
Karen Klein,
The Constitution—-you have heard of that, right?—-allows you to say what you think but that doesn’t mean I or others have to respect what you think. When the LA times refuses to take money from Eli Broad and returns to practicing real journalism in an attempt to balance the news and its Op-Ed page instead of being a propaganda rag for billionaires, then maybe you will earn back some respect.
To refresh your memory:
Read the piece from The Washington Post to see what I mean.
Foundations fund L.A. Times’ education reporting. A conflict?
“Three of the Times’ benefactors — the K&F Baxter Family Foundation, the Wasserman Foundation, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation — have been major supporters of charter and school-privatization efforts that are strongly opposed by teachers’ unions.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/2015/10/29/fd03d240-79cc-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html
The Los Angeles Times sold itself and obviously has abandoned REAL journalism.
LikeLike
Ms. Klein:
As a longtime reader of the newspaper, and its editorials re educational matters, I am genuinely embarrassed to read your attempt to distance the LATIMES from John Deasy.
Put simply and succinctly, the LATIMES—the editorial board in particular—was so supportive of the former superintendent that all but the most knowledgeable readers would have missed the very mild and [it must be said plainly] worshipful criticisms made of him.
Yes, every once in a while a reporter would “go rogue” and put in something slightly unflattering about Mr. Deasy, but that was the exception not the rule.
Your newspaper served as Deasy’s publicity organ for his “reign of errors.” Y’all own, as few others do, the iPad fiasco and MISIS mess and all the rest.
To do otherwise is self-wounding and makes you, and the rest of the editorial board, look like quite the fools.
And you have no one else to blame but yourselves. The harm done was self-inflicted. The only way out is to accept responsibility for what you did and engage in a genuine process of self-reflection and self-correction.
You may dismiss my comments with the typical “whining and “Neener-neener” y’all love to throw at others, but I am the best friend you’ve ever had—
I’m telling you what you need to hear, not what you want to hear.
Your call.
😎
LikeLike
Karin Klein, thank you for writing here.
You are correct that LA Times reporting did not ALWAYS support every bad policy of Deasy. I appreciated occasional good editorials that criticized bad LAUSD policies, like some you mentioned. I also appreciated your opinion piece about opting your daughter out of standardized testing. (Although you in general supported high-stakes standardized testing.)
However, in general, the LA Times editorial board was VERY supportive of Deasy. And unfortunately, you seemed to have a lot of influence on the LAUSD school board, who all seemed to be very concerned about getting endorsements from the Times in their next re-election vote.
In October of the previous year, when it looked like the board might not keep Deasy, long after the teachers of the district had given him a massive vote of no confidence, I think the Times was instrumental in convincing the board to keep him.
At the end, after the Ipad and MISIS scandals, when it looked like the board would finally get rid of him, shortly before it did, the Times was urging them to keep him.
Even the few times when the Times has very mild personal criticism of Deasy, it was only that his personality might be too abrasive, etc. Never that his philosophy of education and anti-teacher stance was all totally wrong. Very little questioning of his ethics, or reporting on his serious ethical concerns previous to LAUSD, fake PhD, etc.
In general, you were extremely pro-Deasy, and seemed to have influenced the Board to keep him as long as it did. Bad effects of his reign are still reverberating in bad educational policies for the children in Los Angeles. Deasy’s ghost still lives at Beaudry, and his benefactor Broad still has immense influence there.
In the past, some of your board endorsements were OK (Ratliff, for example). They became worse in the last board election, endorsing someone with a massive conflict of interest (Ref Rodriguez), and the very damaging Tamar Galatzan, major supporter of Deasy and the Ipad fiasco.
And now your education reporting is funded by Eli Broad? Do you not see a conflict of interest there? Reporting on the tobacco industry funded by Phillip Morris? On car safety funded by General Motors? Investigative reporting on the pharmaceutical industry funded by Glaxo, Smith, Kline? How do you expect the Times to be considered a serious source of education reporting, when funded by Eli Broad?
Your current editorials and even (supposedly objective) reporting on the Broad charter takeover clearly shows that Times education reporting is completely subservient to Broad, even with the demise of his friend publisher Austin Beutner. You very clearly do not want to run anything that might offend Broad, and risk losing his money. But how does that fit with journalistic ethics?
Yes, even articles that are not “editorial” nor ” opinion”, but supposedly “objective”, shows a definite pro-Broad bias. For instance, the following article about the Broad charter plan by Howard Blume: Karin Klein, thank you for writing here.
You are correct that LA Times reporting did not ALWAYS support every bad policy of Deasy. I appreciated occasional good editorials that criticized bad LAUSD policies, like some you mentioned. I also appreciated your opinion piece about opting your daughter out of standardized testing. (Although you in general supported high-stakes standardized testing.)
However, in general, the LA Times editorial board was VERY supportive of Deasy. And unfortunately, you seemed to have a lot of influence on the LAUSD school board, who all seemed to be very concerned about getting endorsements from the Times in their next re-election vote.
In October of the previous year, when it looked like the board might not keep Deasy, long after the teachers of the district had given him a massive vote of no confidence, I think the Times was instrumental in convincing the board to keep him.
At the end, after the Ipad and MISIS scandals, when it looked like the board would finally get rid of him, shortly before it did, the Times was urging them to keep him.
Even the few times when the Times has very mild personal criticism of Deasy, it was only that his personality might be too abrasive, etc. Never that his philosophy of education and anti-teacher stance was all totally wrong. Very little questioning of his ethics, or reporting on his serious ethical concerns previous to LAUSD, fake PhD, etc.
In general, you were extremely pro-Deasy, and seemed to have influenced the Board to keep him as long as it did. Bad effects of his reign are still reverberating in bad educational policies for the children in Los Angeles. Deasy’s ghost still lives at Beaudry, and his benefactor Broad still has immense influence there.
In the past, some of your board endorsements were OK (Ratliff, for example). They became worse in the last board election, endorsing someone with a massive conflict of interest (Ref Rodriguez), and the very damaging Tamar Galatzan, major supporter of Deasy and the Ipad fiasco.
And now your education reporting is funded by Eli Broad? Do you not see a conflict of interest there? Reporting on the tobacco industry funded by Phillip Morris? On car safety funded by General Motors? Investigative reporting on the pharmaceutical industry funded by Glaxo, Smith, Kline? How do you expect the Times to be considered a serious source of education reporting, when funded by Eli Broad?
Your current editorials and even (supposedly objective) reporting on the Broad charter takeover clearly shows that Times education reporting is completely subservient to Broad, even with the demise of his friend publisher Austin Beutner. You very clearly do not want to run anything that might offend Broad, and risk losing his money. But how does that fit with journalistic ethics?
Yes, even articles that are not “editorial” nor ” opinion”, but supposedly “objective”, shows a definite pro-Broad bias. For instance, the following article about the Broad charter plan by Howard Blume:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-la-schools-charter-expansion-20151108-story.html
Blume has written some good education articles in the past. But I definitely see the influence of wanting to please Broad in this article. It pretends to be ” objective”, but is actually very biased. It paints a picture that only the big bad teacher’s union doesn’t like the Broad plan, to lose union power. It portrays Board Member Scott Mark Schmerelson, a long time well-respected administrator in LAUSD, as nothing more than a stooge for that bad teacher’s union, who you portray as acting against the interests of children. (When in fact, no one cares more about students than teachers, the teacher’s union is the voice of the teachers, nothing less nor more.) The article above is very biased pro-Broad, while pretending to be “objective”.
Even if you maintain that the money from Broad does not influence LAT reporting and editorial stance (although it sure seems to), don’t you think that to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, the Times should stop taking money from Broad?
LikeLike
Dear Ms. Klein–
I do always appreciate when you write in here and it shows you do look at this very important counter narrative to the establishment viewpoint your newspaper represents.
When parsing your reply here, you say “The editorial board was overall supportive of Deasy’s aims”. What does that mean? Unfortunately, you never once addressed John Deasy’s pedagogy specifically by defining what it was. You use vague words like “accountability” and “vision” but really, there are plenty of different kinds of educators who also have it.
You PARTICULARLY supported John Deasy’s “accountability” and “vision” and how he IMPLEMENTED those two things to the detriment of the students, teachers and the communities of LA. You would always bring up Deasy’s raising of test scores as proof that he was good at what he did and a reason to keep his job time and time again, but your shallowness in your explanation of what accounted for those test scores is shocking for an “investigative” newspaper.
You liked Deasy POLITICALLY. That’s the bottom line.
You had ZERO problem with Deasy’s qualifications. You had ZERO problem with his PhD. You had ZERO problem with the problematic issues raised during his tenure in Prince George’s County and Santa Monica. You had ZERO problem with how he was foisted un-democratically on LAUSD.
Yes, Ms. Klein, you did indeed raise” issues” with the iPads, the A-G’s and MiSiS, but you as a writer understand language–and any fair rhetorical reading of those editorials would attest–each one uses passive voice wording in admonishing him. There is ZERO outrage and umbrage about John Deasy in any editorial, including the day of his departure. You always took great care to defend his noble, gallant and unselfish ambitions. That’s how you viewed the man’s actions where others (me included), saw him as completely unfit for the job in both temperament and pedagogy.
You and the LA TIMES Editorial Board, sought to protect Deasy’s overall position as Superintendent and we would still have him if you had your way.
In that writer’s tool kit of yours, you were capable of flashes of anger and outrage. When did it appear? Your ugliest, most vitriolic language when employed when talking about the Board of Ed trying to do its job and towards a union that you claim was only interested in teacher protection and not student’s interests.
This same language is carbon copy of the greater Education Reform movement word-for-pathetic-word.
Let me get personal with you a moment because your editorial support of Deasy was very personal to me as a National Board Certified Teacher and a parent.
Ms. Klein, you wrote about opting your own child out of testing in one of the most rich and exclusive school districts in the country but never once fought for the same rights and privileges your daughter had in terms of class size, education opportunities, over-testing, field trips, library access and arts education for my students or son.
You may claim that this isn’t racism or classism, because you are a “liberal” Democrat but you and I vehemently disagree over what that constitutes when it doesn’t involve your own child. You, in your omission about all these issues, talked what MY CHILD needed and deserved.
I DO NOT want my students or my child in a school that you think is good enough.
When you tell me and others to stop whining about charter schools you write “Concerns about the charter push aren’t without foundation.” Again, note passive voice construction, but the one thing you cite as “concern” is the defunding of LAUSD.
You obviously are not concerned about the circumvention of democracy when a plutocrat offers a plan which you enthusiastically embrace to push public policy that creates further inequality, yet enriches plenty of very money interests who would benefit from such a move.
And your paper can’t even be bothered to write a single article or investigate the ramifications of if such a plan became a reality.
Because your paper loves strong men like John Deasy, you might as well write a pro-Iraq invasion article that worries about the consequences of it later and accept the promises of “We’ll be treated as liberators”. What could go wrong?
More mind-boggling for a journalist is your paper’s defense of taking Broad and Walton money to pay your education reporters and tell everyone that there is NOTHING wrong with this arrangement. And despite other newspapers calling you out, you flaunt this patronage with every article and editorial you write on the subject of public education.
Broad and Walton’s sponsorship has become a point of pride at the LA TIMES.
It is here I will make an appeal to the Chicago Tribune at this point to simply sell the LA TIMES to Eli Broad and let’s put this charade out of its misery once and for all.
You and your editorial board have been so consistently wrong about what is good education policy for the working class students of clor in LA that you have sought to double down and try to rewrite history about your own complicity in this nationwide problem. You have sided with Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Arne Duncan, Michelle Rhee, Wall Street, Silicon Valley and about every billionaire hungry to get their hands in the treasury that public education represents.
I come back to your Laguna Beach world, Ms. Klein, whose 1% interests you protect through your advocacy of the education policies you’ve championed in your tenure at the LA TIMES.
Your life is pretty good, Ms.Klein. I’m sure your daughter got a pretty good education with minimum societal traumas among her peers that my own students deal with. Your PEDAGOGICAL prescriptions for them is quite telling and one day, I would love to have a honest debate with you about public education and what SPECIFICALLY you are advocating for ALL children.
Yours,
–Geronimo, NBCT.
LikeLike
Nothing is as outrageous as taking money from Broad to write about education and then claiming objectivity. How do you keep from smirking when you are publishing education editorials?
The Times has lost all credibility and tarnished all its reporting. Now every story must be questioned.
LikeLike
Sorry that some paragraphs seem to be repeated in my previous post, a reply to Karin Klein. I would like to edit out the duplicate writing, but see no way to edit a post. (Diane, you might want to look into if there is a possibility to add the ability to edit posts.) In any case, I think there is much that I wrote that is important, even if some is repeated.
LikeLike
PS to Karin Klein– If you would like to show that your education coverage is not controlled by Broad, to show some balance–may I suggest that you ask Diane Ravitch to write an op-ed on the Broad charter plan for your Opinion section? Diane is the former Undersecretary of Education, a Professor of Education at NYU, and world-renowned author and commentator on education.
Would you print an op-ed by Diane about the Broad charter plan, or would you be afraid that Eli would get mad and cut off the money stream?
I challenge you to do so.
LikeLike
Another PS to Karin Klein– Did the Times ever protest the huge amount of taxpayer money wasted by Deasy on unnecessary travel expenses? Was that really “for the kids”?
And taking much taxpayer-paid work time to testify in the Vergara case, against teachers? (I think most likely to be overturned on appeal.) All his crying about “teachers can’t be fired”, while setting out to fire more than ever before, a policy that has continued in the district after he left, including firing some of the best teachers in the district, including Rafe Esquith? (Is it really about getting rid of “bad” teachers?)
Really–do you feel no responsibility for your (Times Editorial Board) continued cheerleading of Deasy and urging the Board to keep him, which may well have affected them to keep him much longer than they should have–causing severe damage to the district?
LikeLike
One other comment on the Times Deasy coverage. Even those few times that the LA Times rightfully criticized some of Deasy’s policies or actions, you never once mentioned his name in connection with those policies or actions, you were always very careful not to criticize him. (One time even laying the blame on “bumbling bureaucracy” at LAUSD, while very careful not to name the real culprit.)
You and the LA Times editorial board are very culpable in the damage wrought to LAUSD by John Deasy. When will the citizens of Los Angeles see an apology from the Times?
LikeLike