How to Create a Hydra
In Greek mythology, the Hydra had the body of a serpent and many heads, "of which one could never be harmed by any weapon, and if any of the other heads were severed another would grow in its place." The myth also states that "the stench from the Hydra's breath was enough to kill man or beast" and that "when it emerged from the swamp it would attack herds of cattle and local villagers, devouring them with its numerous heads. It totally terrorized the vicinity for many years."
The big news out West this morning is the Grand Compromise reached between Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the teachers' union, the school board, and state legislators over control of the Los Angeles Unified School District. The mayor wanted a set-up like the one in New York City; the rest wanted to be left alone.
After days of closed-door negotiations, the parties involved delivered a settlement that leaves the following people in charge of LAUSD:
1) the mayor
2) the school board
3) the superintendent
4) a council of mayors
5) the teachers' union
The Los Angeles Times story explains who gets to do what -- sort of. What's clear is that if everyone is in charge, then no one is in charge, and that's just how LAUSD has become the state's poster child for unresponsive government bureaucracy (remember "mini-districts?").
But the proposed deal is even worse than the status quo, because under the guise of "mayoral control," it gives UTLA and CTA "authority to shape classroom instruction" - a power the union has long sought but has been unable to achieve on its own, even with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature.
But let's leave the details of this disaster-in-the-making aside for a moment, and list the people who did not have, and will not have, any say in its design, implementation or evaluation:
1) parents
2) LAUSD employees who don't belong to UTLA
3) Republicans or independents
4) voters
You learn all you need to know about education policy in California when you understand that both a Republican governor and a Democratic big-city mayor are compelled to negotiate behind closed doors with the bosses of a private enterprise - the teachers' union - but are in no way obligated to solicit the views of the public, who will pay the price for such grand schemes.
The Los Angeles Times editorial page got it exactly right this morning: "Consider a school whose students are failing at math. Who could responsible parents see to address the problem? The teachers picked the curriculum, but they can't be voted out of office. The school didn't decide its budget; the superintendent did that. But both the board and the mayor have a say in it. The board can't hire and fire the superintendent on its own; the mayor can say the board selects the superintendent. And because the board loses power in this deal, it has little interest in seeing it succeed."
The deal does provide one critical element that all parties to the agreement want: ass-covering. When this goes wrong (and believe me, it will), no one can be singled out for blame. So, in the ultimate irony, a plan with the stated purpose of bringing greater accountability to the city's schools achieves the exact opposite.
The big news out West this morning is the Grand Compromise reached between Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the teachers' union, the school board, and state legislators over control of the Los Angeles Unified School District. The mayor wanted a set-up like the one in New York City; the rest wanted to be left alone.
After days of closed-door negotiations, the parties involved delivered a settlement that leaves the following people in charge of LAUSD:
1) the mayor
2) the school board
3) the superintendent
4) a council of mayors
5) the teachers' union
The Los Angeles Times story explains who gets to do what -- sort of. What's clear is that if everyone is in charge, then no one is in charge, and that's just how LAUSD has become the state's poster child for unresponsive government bureaucracy (remember "mini-districts?").
But the proposed deal is even worse than the status quo, because under the guise of "mayoral control," it gives UTLA and CTA "authority to shape classroom instruction" - a power the union has long sought but has been unable to achieve on its own, even with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature.
But let's leave the details of this disaster-in-the-making aside for a moment, and list the people who did not have, and will not have, any say in its design, implementation or evaluation:
1) parents
2) LAUSD employees who don't belong to UTLA
3) Republicans or independents
4) voters
You learn all you need to know about education policy in California when you understand that both a Republican governor and a Democratic big-city mayor are compelled to negotiate behind closed doors with the bosses of a private enterprise - the teachers' union - but are in no way obligated to solicit the views of the public, who will pay the price for such grand schemes.
The Los Angeles Times editorial page got it exactly right this morning: "Consider a school whose students are failing at math. Who could responsible parents see to address the problem? The teachers picked the curriculum, but they can't be voted out of office. The school didn't decide its budget; the superintendent did that. But both the board and the mayor have a say in it. The board can't hire and fire the superintendent on its own; the mayor can say the board selects the superintendent. And because the board loses power in this deal, it has little interest in seeing it succeed."
The deal does provide one critical element that all parties to the agreement want: ass-covering. When this goes wrong (and believe me, it will), no one can be singled out for blame. So, in the ultimate irony, a plan with the stated purpose of bringing greater accountability to the city's schools achieves the exact opposite.
Post a Comment