I know I am supposed to be taking a break, but I assumed the holidays would be a quiet time. I was wrong.


The Los Angeles Times published an editorial today about charter schools that pretends to be balanced, but it is not. It begins by saying that it is somehow wrong to be for or against charters; one needs a more “nuanced” view. It reports on new research that shows students in charter high schools enter with higher scores than those who do not enroll in charter high schools; that charter middle schools get impressive results; and that charter high schools get unimpressive results. These findings might be reasons to oppose Eli Broad’s proposal to put half the students in Los Angeles into privately-managed charter schools, but that’s not what the editorial says. A photo caption alongside the editorial says “A charter school expansion could be great for L.A.” What happened to that “nuanced” view”?


If you care about the future of public education in the United States, if you don’t like the idea that billionaires should be allowed to privatize public institutions, why shouldn’t you oppose Eli Broad’s plan? Why should you be on the fence?


If you read the editorial to the end, you will see that education coverage in the Los Angeles Times–apparently including the editorials–is underwritten by a group of billionaires, including Eli Broad. But of course the piper doesn’t call the tune. Except when he does.


The best part about the editorial is the comments that follow, each of them expressing a thoughtful response about why it would not be a good idea to let Eli Broad take control of half the children in LAUSD just because he wants to.