The blogger known as the Red Queen in LA breathed a sign of relief and expressed joy: The LAUSD board chose a knowledgeable insider instead of a flashy outsider. Michelle King was the right choice to lead the district and to take care of the children, not the billionaires. The board conducted a national search and then chose the educator who knew the system. They learned that there are no miracle-workers out there.
She writes:
I’ve heard it remarked this is LA’s Hope moment, but I do not think so. King’s promise is not of suppressed anticipatory excitement, but of commonplace relief. None of us actively engaged in public education actually wants the drama of ideology, we want schools that work, institutions anchored to our communities, giving and taking in equal measure, part and parcel of our society’s bedrock. We don’t want to be utilized as part of neoliberal capitalism where education is a sector exploited for its privatization potential. Our kid’s education is not a commodity, it’s just part of their ontogeny. We want a village that will raise our children. Correctly, adequately, properly and in exactly the same way as are Walton or Gates or Obama children.
Traveling through public spaces in town yesterday everywhere could be witnessed folks high-fiving. I stuck my hand out and high-fived innumerable strangers. I knew what they were talking about without overhearing their words: everyone’s just plain relieved. She’s come home, the board’s recovered its senses. The tempering of jittery nerves regarding LAUSD and its future was palpable.
LAUSD’s school board made a very courageous decision in opting for the quietly competent administrative “tortoise” who has not been swinging from educational lianas, leveraging criminal racketeering into higher education diplomas. Michelle King is politically savvy perforce, and the board has satisfied its members through private conversations that her political ideology is sound enough. The prerequisites for this job are ultimately not complex, and the in-house candidate has an advantage in this politically charged climate: she is a known, knowing and competent candidate, and she demonstrably will in fact work for “the children” and not just pretend as much.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I hope all this good will and hope for saner minds to lead LAUSD is valid but remember, for the most part, these are the same people who chose Dz, co-signed on all his failed policies, pushed veteran teachers out on false allegations and no due process. Michele King is the classic insider, will she preserve the system or strike out in a new direction? Only time will tell.
LikeLike
And Paula has every right to be cautious.
But Queenie (so good to hear from you two days in a row), from your words to Oden’s ears…let us hope for the best, and yet still be be cautiously optimistic, but continue to attend BoE meetings and continue to keep the pressure on the district to avoid Great Schools Now touts who still will press, with their millions and billions of dollars, to charterize another 50% of LAUSD.
We must continue to watch carefully for political intrigue and influence (often behind closed doors and possibly counter to the Brown Act), from those members of the BoE who are charter promoters, and those who have their own reasons to support them…and we must stay closely involved and issue thanks to those who solve problems like Ratliff and Schmerelson.
The LA Times still reflects Eli Broad’s perspectives since he and his cohorts pay the freight for the Times education articles, despite their disclaimer…so the aspect of a free press with unbiased reporting is far from what LA residents have, and all readers who get their info from only this tainted source, must always look askance at this info. The various articles in the Times today ranged from Broad’s paid news, to journalistic news reports…to Steve Lopez who wrote what IMO was the best of all and reflects what many of us are feeling. Recommend everyone read at least the Steve Lopez article in the California Section…on page one, left columns. Thank you Steve for this well contsructed opinion.
LikeLike
addendum…BTW…Michelle King does NOT appear on the Broad Academy site showing the Alumni, as an alumna…even though, like alumnus John Deasy, some other candidates under consideration were grads of this notorious group. The you BoE for this big improvement. A Big plus for Michelle King.
And she is a real lifelong, student, educator, and administrator in this district…so she understands LAUSD and she must know the faults and the successes. Hope she is motivated to keep cleaning out the stables (which Cortines started) while implementing positive improvements to keep these schools public, not charter.
LikeLike
Paula – I think the calculus of time and minute personnel changes matters. When you say these are “the same people for the most part”, that part which isn’t the most, matters. The constituency of this board is significantly different even if it might appear superficially similar. Plus time just really, really matters too.
DZ got loaded ondeck with zero vetting when there was a different, “activist”, personally and morally-questionably mayor in office (Villaraigosa), whose footsie-playing with big boys like Broad were entirely a propos. True, Zimmer, the board prez was around then but FWIW he alone, held out on voting for the preordained DZ. It’s clear enough that whole experience was sufficiently traumatizing he worked extra-hard to expiate it all.
But mostly, Garcia is not board president this time, and she’s totally marginalized now. The new charter guy, Rodriguez, is extant, but he hasn’t a presence; he’s emasculated at the moment at least, biding his time. In truth, while it may appear the board is composed of the “same guys”, it absolutely is not; the alignment is all different and the backers are too.
And it results in a vote for caution and safety at the end of the day, rather than flagrant, ballsy ideology. And it results in a vote for caution being the ironically ballsy route, given the presence of the same shark-like Big Boys still circling in the background. A vote for sanity is a vote of strength and courage, under these weird topsy-turvy conditions. IMHO.
LikeLike
Steve Lopez is a columnist for the LATIMES. He is neither elated, nor deflated, over the choice.
IMHO, his comments are worth reading, especially given the extremely pro-rheephorm slant of the LATIMES (e.g., the recently retired Sandy Banks).
Link: http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-0113-lopez-michelle-king-20160113-column.html
Teasers follow.
Excerpt #1:
[start]
While there may indeed be an advantage to knowing the district inside out, as King certainly does, there’s a disadvantage to having been a central part of its culture and dysfunction for decades.
Let’s not forget that King was No. 2 on the flow chart during Deasy’s iPad debacle and the equally disastrous rollout of the electronic student tracking system. Deasy was ambitious and determined to have his way. What he needed most wasn’t a meek loyalist, but someone with the courage to speak up and tell him when he was wrong.
[end]
Excerpt #2 [last paragraph]:
[start]
I need to be won over, but I’d be thrilled if the safe choice turns out to be the best choice.
[end]
😎
P.S. Ellen Lubic: read your comment as I was just about to post this comment.
See—great minds think alike!
LikeLike
We have known this for ages, dear Krazed one.
LikeLike
I must emphatically if respectfully disagree entirely with your praise of Lopez’ article.
In selecting King the BoE did not make a “safe” choice. They laid a trump card firmly and squarely on the table following Broad’s preemptive Charter Proposition lead. And they do not yet know how Broad’s partners will lead even, yet their direction is clear.
This is something of an audacious move, as Lopez’ reaction attests. He actually says something like ‘all that money and you circle back to the girl next door’? But she is the district’s best chance. Lopez actually has the learns-nothing attitude that he would prefer to go out on a limb all over again looking for an ideological knight in shining armor to clean up whatever chimeric and fictitious mess someone else has asserted to be the bogey in the public’s mind’s eye as characterizing LAUSD. Lopez peddles the pablum that ‘public-schools-all-suck-and-only-someone-with-a-really-big-broomstick-will-be-able-to-clear-out-the-mess’. In fairness I believe he has a child in the system and this may be his own personal authentic reaction. But it is not mine and I do not believe it is not externally fomented into being – hence my disrespect for his essay. The experience he references does not jibe with my own: it sounds to me personally at least, inauthentic, brainwashed, received and not experienced.
Lopez yearns for “… a proven leader, from a functional enterprise, who could take a fresh look at what needs to be done…”. But I don’t think there’s much fresh thinking that needs to happen. There’s some nimble footedness that needs dancing about the roadblocks and falsehoods being sprinkled so liberally about, that teachers are dead union obstructionists interested only in pulling the system into a quagmire of unaffordability, yadayada, that parents are voting for and looking for “choice” when in fact they are forced inexorably to crappier and crappier deserts, etc. The bottom line is not mysterious: there’s too little money being devoted to the education of poor children, which is what the public school system has nearly exclusively become the realm of. This does not, therefore, a public education system constitute, and this is the problem. In the meantime, this second-largest school district needs someone to maximize efficiency in running what we have. The theorizing about what should be isn’t a propos; administering what is, is.
And that “Al Haig moment” was never. King was *asked* whether she would consider that position and her letter was checking a box on a to-do list: answering the question posed of her. This was widely reported at the time. What is with the retroactive making of her letter as somehow indicative of a over-reaching ambitious schemer who nevertheless is hampered by being nothing more than a “meek loyalist”. How can you have it both ways? And why would you have it either; time will ripen and reveal the strength of her leadership. This second-guessing prognostication is a game no one wins by playing.
A longer, deeper search would have been … more expensive. And been extremely unlikely to reveal more wisdom than has been already; there are diminishing returns to such a proposition, and a changing calculus: much to be lost from delay and little to be gained from searching the chimera of a shining white ideologue.
Again, given the immediate-past circumstances of LAUSD, to have hired someone whose defining characteristic is that of maintaining a “low profile” sounds to me exceptionally excellent.
In wondering what is “the plan”, interested parties might be interested in reviewing her interview with Warren Olney here (from minute 16: http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/which-way-la/los-angeles-gets-an-nfl-team-or-two – 1/13/16 episode). She’s pretty clear about her priorities and the only bromides I’m hearing are Lopez’.
That said, I sure don’t share her enthusiasm about MISIS! But I do not think that’s part of this argument…. She threads the charter-support quagmire quite deftly IMO. What would *you* say?! It’s a real toughie….
LikeLike
redqueeninla: I take no exception to your comments, and in fact you make clear that I did not make myself clear.
Put succinctly, I find that the piece by Steve Lopez—in comparison with so many many LATIMES pieces on rheephorm and rheephormsters over the last five years at least—is a small breath of fresh air.
Speaking just for myself, I find that he is taking (what I see as) an informed “wait-and-see” stance. Contrast this with, for example, the opinion pieces by recently retired columnist Sandy Banks. She wrote with passion and a polite yet unrestrained fury about bullying with a strong tinge of racism in sports (e.g., think Richie Incognito and the NFL) and yet forgave John Deasy (albeit with unimportant misgivings) his heavy-handed, incompetent and abusive treatment of folks like Ms. Patrena Shankling. Right out of the gate she lauded and forgave John Deasy any abuse of his office—even when it directly contradicted her putative public stance.
On a personal level, perhaps if I knew Ms. Banks personally I would find her a caring and loving person. However, in her published work her demonstrated an unrequited love for, and support of, his reprehensible and immoral conduct on a number of occasions that could not be excused in any way, shape or form by his supposed “passion” and “drive.”
She, like so many others in the MSM, bear direct responsible for such (now admitted by the LATIMES itself) fiascos as the iPad and MISIS train wrecks. IMHO, too little, too late.
So, at least in comparison, I find the restraint displayed by Mr. Lopez a welcome relief.
Might I change my opinion one way or another? If the facts demand it, I will, but for now I am glad to see someone associated with the LATIMES exercising even a little caution and good sense.
Let me end by again thanking you for trying to keep it real, not rheeal. I may not see eye to eye with you on everything, we may at times have to agree to disagree, but I will continue to read what you write and leave myself open to changing my mind based on what you offer.
😎
LikeLike
redqueeninla – You are correct: at least as of circa 2010, Lopez did have offspring in LAUSD. He wrote a piece then about how great Ivanhoe Elementary was (in his arch-gentrified Silverlake neighborhood), and how he trusted the principal there so much that she should be given authority to fire any teacher she viewed as ineffective.
More recently, his kid moved on to King Middle School, another campus with vastly different demographics (both socioeconomically and ethnically) than the majority of LAUSD schools. There, he wrote a column in which he lambasted the UTLA chairperson at King, who I know to be hardworking and honest, for seeking parent support.
In my estimation, Mr. Lopez is quite content with LAUSD schools, as long as they are populated by the children of other wealthy faux-liberals. The only problem he sees is all those darn teachers.
LikeLike
lol. No love lost from here on the departed-Banks!
And I don’t dislike Lopez all the time … just this time. I actually see this piece as a knee-jerk reflexive response ironically in the mold of the vanquished-Banks. Hissing at this board for not producing a rheeformer or even a reformer, is filling the vacuum left by Banks handily. He’s petulant about the absence of a high profile fix-er-up-chappie, without crediting the possibility that this job might not need a broomstick.
Which is an obvious impertinence: imagine entertaining the notion that LAUSD might not be so broke that the only way to fix it would be to change its character essentially?
LikeLike
Ah so, Queenie….not the first time you and I have disagreed. But then, since I am more than a bit older than you and have lived through so much political deception, and since public policy is my field of study, I tend to join Lopez in a ‘wait and see’ stance.
But I always enjoy not only your opinions, but your language flourishes and counterpoints of your dismissive words and your superb vocabulary. Keep it coming.
LikeLike
At any forum I participated in to discuss the superintendent search, Michelle King was named by parents and teachers as a trusted, steady force. They expressed a desire for an actual educator and a fear of someone coming in with some unpredictable agenda disguised as “vision” to make sweeping changes. Many principals and teachers I know have always respected Michelle King for knowing what their schools needed and supporting their efforts.
I think the board did the right thing by resisting its usual fascination with, as one friend put it, “the shiny new thing”. Some of the candidates they were considering were showy “nice” guys from very small school districts. I was concerned that a superintendent like that would be wowed by the power that gets passed around Los Angeles as casually as tips to valets, seeking to influence the superintendent for all kinds of agendas that have nothing to do with students and families.
Plus, some candidates just did not seem ready for the big league. How are 22,000 and 54,000 students considered big districts if LAUSD has over 600,000? The leadership qualities for districts with so few schools compared to LAUSD which spans over 700 square miles of urban and suburban schools are unique. It is easy to imagine those guys getting pulled aside by the likes of Eli Broad and Deasy, who now officially works for Broad, and being offered the keys, even if they didn’t come in with an ideological bent. A valet doesn’t have to agree with a billionaire to get the thrill of driving his car (but to fly on his chartered jet, he does).
Yet I agree with KrazyTA that Steve Lopez’s column is valid. He is not advocating the ideology of the reformsters, but he has no patience for anyone insisting there is nothing to fix in LAUSD whose dysfunction he has dutifully documented. At some point, Ms. King will face questions about decisions, and actions or inactions that she must have known about or participated in by virtue of her inside positions all these years. Many of us public education advocates have had major beefs with some of the nonsensical actions inside that headquarters building.
And Lopez is 100% right to question the contract with the search firm Hazard Young Atia. They were managing LAUSD’s search at the same time as their disastrous Minneapolis search (that school district is considering asking HYA for a refund–read anything by Sarah Lahm for info on that debacle which is still playing out– https://twitter.com/sarahrlahm/status/687072596274225153) How they are even still taken seriously by school districts is beyond me.
So the LAUSD board did the thing that made sense for this time, even if the reason they did it was what Steve Lopez previously called “PTSDeasy”.
LikeLike
*Correction: Hazard Young Attea
LikeLike
You bring up a telling point, Karen. A few of us questioned the choice of this now infamous firm of head hunters from the beginning of the search process. Looking at their client base even before they were chosen, was bot enlightening and alarming. It might be reasonable in light of current information, for the BoE to work within the legal system to get a refund of at least part of the $250 K payout to them. Supt. Cortines and the Board did this with Apple and Pearson…so perhaps they can institute a similar action here.
LikeLike
I’m not in substantial disagreement with anyone here’s point of prudence regarding skepticism and a “wait and see” bottom line attitude. With that I do agree and am remiss in not stating so clearly.
My point is, however, that the King appointment is, “meek loyalist” persona notwithstanding, a move of power and courage by the board, and a counter to Broad’s preemptive 50% charterization move. It may be that the road away leads back home, but the journey is not insubstantial, as Dorothy attests (above; wait — did I post that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ6VT7ciR1o). And more, as today’s ratification of Schmerelson’s motion confirms. This is a medium-long play, and quite frankly, very possibly worth the $250K of the search firm. They legitimize the move; they listened. Like others, I attended multiple of these meetings and was won over through my skepticism to a belief in the proper placement of their (Hazard et al.’s) hearts and minds. This was a search done right, and though superficially low-key, the trajectory could be explosive.
As you all so aptly note: we’ll see.
LikeLike
correction: multitude, not “multiple”
LikeLike
Heck, all this chatter about refunds from the superintendent’s search is useless, I say that at least there was a search. Who cares what Steve Lopez said or didn’t, LAUSD needs an overhaul even if it is incremental. What I would like to see is Michele King give a wholehearted support for LAUSD teachers by completely eliminating teacher jail and all its witch hunting staff and embrace a fair, balanced protocol for dealing with child abuse that encompasses all district staff, not just teachers. While district policies state this exists already, it doesn’t. For the massive violations of teachers civil rights and livelihoods, the district must pay however, there is no reason that they have to continue paying. Dissolve, terminate, this stain on the district now.
LikeLike
hear hear, Paula.
LikeLike
It’s two days since this was posted…and after the last BoE meeting onTuesday, many parents, teachers, administrators, and community activists, have mixed opinions on how Michelle King will oversee LAUSD. Her style of ‘slow and steady’ is a real relief to many of us who were horrified at the DEASY/BROAD/VILLARAIGOSA onslaught using the words “close schools rapidly” in every speech, and then Deasy giving testimony against his own teachers in the Vergara case….where he said, after it was adjudicated by Judge Treu for the plaintiffs, “now I can fire teachers more rapidly”,,,and he did.
So King seems a breath of fresh air, especially with her remarks on looking into the blatantly unfair persecution that is ‘teacher jail’.
However….at the end of the last BoE meeting many/most existing charters were given the go ahead and new ones were okayed.
So, as with Steve Lopez, I feel we must wait and see. It seemed too easy to get Rodriguez and Garica to vote with the other 5 for King….and from past history of this devious group we must still suspect that there was much ‘quid pro quo’ to reach a unanimous vote.
Great Schools Now, the recent permutation 501c3 of the Eli Broad plan to take over another 50% of LAUSD schools to charterize them, has hired the strong and loudly outspoken CCSA Latina, Castrejon, to run their show, and they are pitting her against King (LAUSD has a majority of Latino students, as does California).
And as a ‘gun held to the heads’ of We the People who are paying for all of it, this group of Charter millionaires now has instituted a law suit against the district to grab a large portion of LAUSD bond funds set aside for handicapped students (remember that Deasy usurped that ear marked bond funding to pay for his fiasco iPad deal with Apple and Pearson). The CCSA wants to use this money to pay for fancy charter buildings for their hand picked, not handicapped, students. So this game of greed is far from over…and cooperation by the two, or maybe more (such as McKenna), charter supporters on the BoE is still going to need us all to fight back.
So, fellow muckrakers, please keep your eyes open, and as Michelle states she will “listen carefully” to all the comments, we too must listen to it all, not just the PR words. There are various articles today in the LA Times with the Broad disclaimer attached…but the best info in the last day is from LASR.
LikeLike
Ellen,
I hadn’t put two and two together when I heard the new executive director was named for the Broad plan’s nonprofit. That is no coincidence. We can expect the usual racial politics to kick into gear.
LikeLike
Yes, the game is certainly not over. And for sure deals have been made to garner the unanimous votes. However, I am heartened to see the board, especially Zimmer, finally put their money where their mouths are. To the best of their abilities. Schlemerson and Ratliff are dutiful and brave custodians of the public’s trust and I am grateful they are on the job.
I work in LAUSD and I love my job. I love the students, my fellow teachers, the families and support staff. I love my city. It had been a
LikeLike
Yes, the game is certainly not over. And for sure deals have been made to garner the unanimous votes. However, I am heartened to see the board, especially Zimmer, finally put their money where their mouths are. Schlemerson and Ratliff are dutiful and brave custodians of the public’s trust and I am grateful they are on the job.
I will watch and listen along with my fellow Angelenos and celebrate that for now, we can focus on students.
LikeLike