CA: More reaction to Villaraigosa's school deal
Insane teacher catches this illuminating little detail:
Here's the key provision: the school board loses its power to make decisions that cost LAUSD more than $25,000. I had to read that twice. I thought it might have said less than, but I teach first grade, so I know the difference. Why the heck would we want the power to spend so much money to go from a small group to a single person (the Superintendent, the choice of whom the mayor will now have veto-power)?Oh, and this little detail as well, related to NCLB.
There's some provisions in it that are sneaky (The Mayor's council is in charge of the 36 failing schools. Are they in charge of just those 36 schools or any school that's failing? I don't know, but I'd bet the latter. But, if you know anything about NCLB, you know that number is just going to grow exponentially, so Villaraigosa secretly did get complete control like he wanted, he just has to wait...), but there is one way to know what this compromise is really about...Follow the money.Insane teacher's blog looks new. Certainly this is another edublog to keep your eyes on.
Marc Cooper of the LA Weekly discusses his take on what drove Villaraigosa to push this deal: the CA governorship in 2010.
Better for Antonio that Phil loses in November and goes back into business with Angelo spreading around more suburban sprawl. Arnold also likes that plan.This whole thing makes me think twice about the very charismatic Villaraigosa. He'll sacrifice kids, although not his, for his career.
Maybe that’s our real choice in November. Either we get another four years of Arnold, a reformed school district and Antonio as governor in 2010. Or we get eight years of Phil and the same brain-dead school system. Who says we don’t have clear-cut choices?
It seems LATimes has a new blog covering blog reactions, and, hey look, my last post is linked. More reaction, mostly from the other side of the blogosphere here and here.