Sep 14, 2018 by

Beutner.jpgby Leonard Isenberg –

What is most disingenuous about the L.A. Times “Reporter” Howard Blume’s latest article entitled “LAUSD chief signals desire to limit teacher job protections and change funding rules” is that virtually nothing in the article is even remotely true. And worst yet, ersatz “Reporter” Blume knows it’s not true. But at least he’s got a good excuse for not telling the truth, since at the L.A. Times, they have gone from 1400 to 350 reporters. And where all remaining reporters like Blume know full well that they too will be out the door, if they even attempt to actually report the truth as to what is going on at LAUSD and elsewhere.

Howard Blum knows the truth and at an earlier time in his reporting life, when he was a real reporter, Blum might just have posed some of the following questions:

You now talk about wanting to “limit teacher job protections,” but given the assault LAUSD has already waged against more expensive high seniority teachers over at least the last 10 years for their sole “crime” of being at the top of the salary scale, can you tell me Supt. Beutner what real job protections do any LAUSD teachers still have?

How many thousand teachers with no prior negative evaluations- 73% of whom are over 40 and at the top of the salary scale- have you and your immediate predecessors gotten rid of on completely fabricated charges in order to balance your budget and avoid nonetheless impending bankruptcy?

If LAUSD is in such dire financial straits, why has the number of administrators dramatically increased over the last few years, while the number of teachers has gone down? Aren’t teachers more indispensible than administrators?

If you truly believe that good teachers are so important, why is it that upward mobility at LAUSD is out of teaching and into administration? Given that good teachers work as hard, if not harder than administrators. Why not pay teachers more money than administrators, who in reality sit in an office and don’t have to deal with overfilled classrooms of 40 plus students, the majority of whom are profoundly behind grade-level?

How can LAUSD “improve academics” by having your administrators continue a long standing LAUSD policy of intimidating teachers year after year into giving passing grades and socially promoting students, who remain profoundly behind grade-level? Doesn’t this unnecessarily doom these once natively intelligent students to a life of what would have been easily avoidable failure through timely education?

You want “Sacramento to change the way it determines funding” to base it on registration and not in-seat attendance. But isn’t there already chronic truancy that has gone unaddressed by LAUSD? And don’t we have in-seat ADA, instead of payment by enrollment because of prior LAUSD manipulation of that system, when it was in place?

Haven’t actual attendance figures already been doctored by your administrators in actions that amounts to defrauding of the State of California for Average Daily Attendance (ADA) money?

You say, “We need a transparent, efficient and fair process to manage ineffective teachers out.” What about a process that removes ineffective administrators who fix grades, assessments, and attendance- which created the present problems- while targeting effective teachers who have the temerity of reporting blatant LAUSD corruption.

You talk about how “an ineffective teacher can cause students to lose more than a year of learning, which is setting students up for failure.” But isn’t the reality that it is the administration which has already year after year been setting these students up for failure by continuing to socially promote them year after year without mastery of basic prerequisite skills they would need in higher grade levels? Or put simply, why is the teacher “ineffective” if, for example, he is trying to teach a 12th grade Government class to a student with a 3rd grade reading level? Why aren’t you questioning how this student got pushed through grade after grade without any administrator ever putting this student in an appropriate program at an appropriate grade-level?

Is it foreseeable that students put in classes years beyond their subjective easily verifiable level might be purposefully disruptive in class, instead of allowing themselves to be publicly humilated in front of their peer group with academic materials they couldn’t possibly know?

Given the 50% turnover of teachers within 5 years, do you really think the problem is too easy tenure? Or is it the inability of teachers to teach because the vast majority of their students are not at grade-level due to LAUSD administration’s complete unwillingness to take cognizance of where LAUSD students are really at academically and why?

You say “More state funding…is sorely needed.” But how much more state funding would be presently available, if LAUSD administration timely dealt with an existing 52% chronic truancy rate that already profoundly cuts into LAUSD’s Average Daily Attendance money from the State?


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.