By L.A. Times reporter Howard Blume, via Twitter
6:01 PM - 21 Jan 2014 :: @HowardBlume: No immediate story forthcoming. Just thought I'd report a bit about this testimony before the city council committee via Twitter.
Here's link to critical report--harsh about many L.A. things. School officials said they weren't consulted: http://ow.ly/sOMh9
L.A. schools Supt. Deasy testifies at City Hall after city report calling schools a failure. Courtesy on all sides. No major fireworks.
3 councilmembers took no ownership of critical report. Deasy expressed no dismay, but thanked city for positive partnership.
Committee included former school board member Nury Martinez--greeted Deasy warmly. She's pondering where to send daughter to kindergarten.
Deasy talked of 3 goals: 1) transform how the district hires, fires, promotes, replaces, trains. 2) managing $7 billion budget well &...
and 3) providing families w high quality school choices. He presented for nearly an hour & answered friendly questions for an hour.
He also defended iPad effort, saying 3 goals 1) closing digital divide 2) having up to date curriculum 3) having technology for testing
Councilmember Nury Martinez to Deasy: "It’s great to see old friends...I think we did a lot of really great work together.”
Modest admonitions to Deasy. Martinez: "We need to work a little harder to make sure kids are learning.”
More modest admonitions. Mitch O'Farrell: "I’ve been disheartened about schools" not being accessible for neighborhood use.
More modest admonitions. Bernard Parks: Almost impossible to deal w LAUSD bureaucracy above level of principals.
Deasy on iPads: "I don’t know what the controversy is...Good healthy dose of political manipulation” is behind the furor.
More Deasy on iPads: "The initiative has certainly changed” w addition of laptops, a benefit of "good robust policy discussion."
But Deasy reiterates on iPads: "As to why it’s controversial. I don’t know. I think it’s a good thing to help youth in poverty.”
end twitter stream
Thank you for your Twitter stream.
You wrote: But Deasy reiterates on iPads: "As to why it's controversial. I don't know. I think it's a good thing to help youth in poverty."
Howard, I not a fan of poverty and I agree with Dr D that poverty is an issue. However I do not see anywhere in the BB, K, R, Y, or Q school construction and modernization bonds – in the bond language or in the campaign literature or promises - that poverty was to be addressed by the bonds.
The bonds were to build schools and fix up old ones. To end school overcrowding. To end year ‘round calendars to get kids off the bus and back to their neighborhood schools. Later goals were Full Day Kindergarten and guaranteeing core facilities. Earthquake retrofit became a goal after the Belmont Learning Complex/Roybal fiasco identified other seismic needs at other schools
Test platforms and curriculum were never part of the deal. Ending poverty and social engineering are not school construction.
Ignoring the intent of the voters and taxpayers is what’s controversial