The Los Angeles Times editorial board published an editorial today chastising the California Teachers Association for resisting privatization of public education via charters.

I assume that this editorial was in no way influenced by Eli Broad, who subsidizes the Times’ education coverage, which is a blatant conflict of interest.

The editorial board can’t see any critics of charters other than teachers’ unions, who presumably are protecting their jobs by fighting off the agenda that Donald Trump and Betsy DeVos are promoting.

It can’t see why parents and graduates of public schools (like me) think that turning public money over to private and unaccountable boards is a terrible idea.

One would think that the LA Times might express concern about the millions of dollars pumped into the school board race by billionaires like Eli Broad, Reed Hastings, Richard Riordan, and the Waltons. How did it happen that the California Charter Schools Association become the most influential lobby in Sacramento? Isn’t the Times just a little bit curious about the deployment of big money? Have they noticed that the same money has bought the school boards in Denver, Indianapolis, and other cities? Are they aware that Reed Hastings longs for the day when democratically elected school boards are obsolete. Meanwhile, he is willing to spend whatever it takes to buy them.

One would think that a major metropolitan newspaper would worry about the power of big money to buy local school board elections. When did any of these billionaires ever have a child or grandchild in the LAUSD public schools? Why doesn’t the editorial question why they want so badly to buy the school board? What do they want?

One would think that the LA Times might have noticed the numerous scandals associated with charter schools in Los Angeles and throughout California. Is that not a reason to fight for public schools and public accountability for public money?

Does the Los Angeles Times recognize that charter schools skim the students they want and dump the ones they don’t want? Is this not a dire threat to public education, which must take the students the charters don’t want?

This editorial must be a source of joy to Betsy DeVos. The game plan in California looks like the DeVos plan in Michigan: charters, charters, charters, while defunding public schools. Did it help struggling students? No. Did it improve the academic performance of the students of Michigan? No. Michigan’s NAEP scores have plummeted since DeVos launched her charter agenda in the state.

The people of California must stand up for public education, under democratic control and with full accountability and transparency.

Shame on the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times.