LA Teachers Union Goes After Reformist Superintendent

Fighting accountability every step of the way

LAUSD's teachers union issued an overwhelming vote of no-confidence Thursday in the leadership of Superintendent John Deasy as he finishes his second year, while a rival survey released by civil rights groups showed strong support for his reform strategies and called for an even more aggressive approach to improving student achievement.

In the poll by United Teachers Los Angeles, 16,040 union members expressed displeasure with Deasy, while only 1,647 said they had confidence in the direction of LAUSD since he took the helm two years ago. UTLA President Warren Fletcher said the results of the no-confidence vote would be shared with the school board, whose seven members supervise the schools chief. The union has about 33,000 members, but only about half offered their opinions in the poll.

"The school board needs to be presented with this data. If there are concerns that arise about his performance, they have to be addressed," Fletcher said. "A superintendent is always a reflection of the school board. They need to look into their vision of the district and see if that's where they want the district to go."

Comments

[Bruce William Smith]

Does anyone see anything in the entire Daily News article that would make anyone want to move to Los Angeles? The union starts off with some valid criticisms about the misuse of excessive testing, but then goes on to reveal a purely reactionary agenda about returning to the good old days of lots of scantily employed out-of-classroom workers. The civil rights leaders poll one another and then pretend that that is somehow representative of what Los Angeles wants. What about all of those people in the county who have already fled LAUSD, via private schools or setting up separate cities, or tried to do so, in the San Fernando Valley? If L.A. doesn’t want to be merely a magnet for the underclass, legally here or not, with an ever-shrinking tax base to underserve ever-increasing needs, it needs an education-friendly vision that can actually attract employers and families back to the city — and neither of these visions competing in the article is likely to do that.