John Deasy to Speak at USC

Tomorrow evening USC will host a panel discussion featuring John Legend (Grammy award-winning artist and philanthropist), John Deasy (superintendent of LAUSD), Ana Ponce (CEO of Camino Nuevo Charter Academy) and Hrag Hamalian (Founder and Head of Valor Academy).  March is national education month and tomorrow Deasy, Ponce and Hamalian plan to discuss ways in which USC students can help reduce the achievement gaps in LA and the current state of LA’s school district. 

But is John Deasy really the best person to deal out information on effective education reform? 

Deasy has been a strong force in education reform since the issue regained popularity. He has earned the support of Mayor Villaraigosa, NYC Mayor Bloomberg, and the endorsement of the five top mayoral candidates in LA (the big budget team). His big push for teacher accountability via testing data has made him a big enemy to the teacher’s union and a hero to other reformists. 

Deasy’s track record so far is not pretty. From an allegedly fake Ph.D to accusations of title I, II, III funds theft to his suspicious involvement with big corporations that run Charter schools such as the Gate’s and Board Foundations it appears that Deasy took on the role of superintendent with his own agenda in mind. His is an agenda that seeks to maximize profits by selling off public schools to private corporations (Charters). These Charters have access to federal funds but are subject to much less scrutiny as to how they handle that money. This means that while they may collect money for let’s say special needs students if they do not have any special needs students (and they more often than not do not accept these students) that money could go right into the board’s pocket. There is no oversight when it comes to Charterfunds. With this in mind it makes sense that Deasy would support such institutions. Many of these companies fund Deasy’s agenda. They support him financially and in return he dismantles poor inner city schools giving the companies access to more students.  

NCLB and other standardized test regimes gave Deasy the ammunition he needs to take out teachers and entire schools. From the beginning he made it clear that he was fueled by standardized test data and clung tightly to the belief that data should drive instruction.  He refused to spend time and money on programs that did not directly affect test scores. As a result, many children said goodbye to recess. He has gotten rid of early childhood programs, adult education, and cut art and music programs in hundreds of schools. His next goal was to get rid of ineffective teachers relying solely on test scores. However, test scores alone are not very reliable indicators of teacher effectiveness. Regardless, since his term Deasy has sent out well over 9,000 layoff notices to LA school facility members.

Those that remain are forced to adhere to the “teach to the test” method.  While this method may reflect well on the tests it severely limits the amount of knowledge a child actually absorbs. It restricts critical and creative thinking and instead focuses on teaching kids to fill in the bubble the test wants them to. This method in the long run may cause more harm than good because it is producing a generation of children that are not able to think outside the box, or in this case bubble. 

Recently his attempt to seek No Child Left Behind waivers and create a new data-based accountability system for his district and nine others did not succeed because the resistance to evaluate teachers based on test scores has started to push back.   Union members also look unfavorably towards Deasy because of his mass closing and breaking up of high schools.

It will be interesting to see what kind of policy changes Deasy speaks about at USC especially in regards to school closings. In all likelihood Deasy will remain the superintendent after the upcoming elections. Similar to what has and is happening in New York City the effects of Deasy’s reform tactics may fully emerge once extensive damage has been done.    

One Size Fits All Does Not Work In Education

As discussions about education reform in Los Angeles heat up budget cuts and underfunded schools remain a primary concern. It seems obvious that without a steady flow of financial resources teacher qualification and student motivation matter little because schools inevitably end up suffering from teacher layoffs, larger and less efficient classes, a shortage of materials and in many cases permanent closings. Why then, if the consequences are so clear, are so many public school in LA still neglected?

A vicious cycle plays out as underperforming schools lose funding causing their already struggling students to move to yet another overcrowded underfunded school where the process begins again. This punitive accountability strategy brought in by the Bush administration with No Child Left Behind was meant to scare teachers into working harder. As I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, this strategy does not work and it is not fair to the teachers.

As well intentioned as policy makers may be they are not well equipped to design effective educational reform policies. They cannot treat education reform the same as they would the economy. When it comes to a child’s education one size does not fit all. Looking for a federal policy, or even a statewide policy, to govern all schools by will not bring about the changed needed.

Instead more effective results will emerge when local governments create policies based on what their school districts need. In low-income areas there is a higher need for quality early childhood education. Some areas need to focus on ESL programs and some need to focus on improving the quality of their teachers and teacher’s assistants. Others still need to focus more on creating safe environments for their students to learn in or on the physical health of their students.    

Federal intervention in funding is useful when local governments and school boards decide where the money should be directed. There are simply too many unique issues to address with a couple policies from above.