Today on AirTalk we'll discuss the latest between LAUSD and UTLA regarding teacher evaluations, a round-up of all news Orange County with our panel of OC journalists, A special forces group is criticizing the Obama administrations handling of the Osama bin Laden killing in a new documentary, the slow death of the daily deal with Groupon's latest drop in the market and a look at marriage and children in the modern era. Plus, the latest news.
LAUSD and UTLA square off over teacher evaluations (poll)
As students head back to Los Angeles schools, district leaders and the teachers union continue their long-standing battle over teacher performance evaluations.
The newly imposed performance evaluation system, which is in its second year of testing, includes student standardized test scores in evaluating teachers and administrators. United Teachers Los Angeles has vigorously opposed the system, which would affect decisions on hiring, firing, tenure and pay increases.
Firing the latest salvo, union president Warren Fletcher this week told membership in a robo-call not to participate in the voluntary performance review, a move that Los Angeles Unified School District head John Deasy called “a real step backward” in relations between the two organizations.
This is not the first time Fletcher has requested teachers refuse to participate in the program — he made the same call to action last year during the initial phase of the evaluation process.
Deasy told AirTalk he was “very disappointed that we don’t seem to have a partner within leadership” at UTLA.
To further stir the waters, a bill that would impose collective bargaining on teacher evaluation discussions is up for review in the Senate Appropriations Committee today. AB 5, authored by Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes (D-Sylmar), has languished for over a year. Critics say its revival represents an attempt by California teachers to make an end run around the evaluation process, which a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge recently ruled is required by state law.
Deasy had three major criticisms to AB 5: he said it could result in the removal of the student achievement evaluation, something he does not see as “wise, good or appropriate”; it could continue to delay the process towards laying out a definitive evaluation system, and it would make everything within the process subjected to collective bargaining.
“Were districts in California unable to collective bargain [for the evaluation], does that mean we don’t have an evaluation process and we continue to stay where we are now?” he asked. Deasy said the current system is “a pitiful process that neither helps teachers nor identifies outstanding teaching or teaching in need of remediation.”
But Fletcher says the system LAUSD wants to implement is flawed beyond repair.
“There is a desire to reduce teaching to like a score on a restaurant — to an A, B or C — and teaching is a lot more complicated than that,” he said. “Although there are a lot of folks who would like to have a quick and dirty, ‘This person’s good, this person’s bad,’ based on statistical items, that’s not what teaching is and it certainly won’t help us improve.”
Fletcher reiterated the sentiment, repeating his belief that the system had a 25-percent error margin and ultimately, would do nothing to improve teachers’ performance.
“A school and a classroom is more complicated than scores and numbers,” he said.
But Deasy defended the evaluation system, saying the system Fletcher was referring to was not the one they were hoping to implement and it did not have a 25-percent margin of error. He compared the evaluation to an end of the year grade, much like the kind students receive after completing their courses. “If that’s all right for students why is it not for the adults who work with the students?” he said.
Deasy said he did not understand why any teacher would refuse to participate in the evaluation procedure, which is only a “tiny fraction” of overall, holistic teacher evaluation. This, he said, was about accountability.
“The overall majority of how you evaluate a teacher is classroom observation, feedback from parents and students, and a component — albeit a minor component that we’re putting forward — is how students do over time and how we’re accountable for how [they] do,” Deasy said.
Online and on the phones, there was a mix of support and opposition to the new evaluation program. But ultimately, what stood out was frustration with the public school system — a system that could ultimately determine the career and higher educational paths of students.
One caller, Richard from Bel Air, said the debate was, point-blank, “ridiculous.”
“It is UTLA and the teachers, who have for years, continually resisted, at all costs, any objective measure of teaching results,” he told AirTalk. “That’s what we’re paying for. I hate to say, I have four children who went through LAUSD, we’re paying for results. Teachers who don’t produce results ought to find another occupation … How well you’re teaching is evaluated in how well the students are doing or not. Stop trying to cloak it in all of these slogans and sayings. If you’re not teaching well, we have every right to test and every right to expect results.”
UTLA and LAUSD need to come to agreement soon; this December they must prove that student test scores are being used for evaluation in order to comply with a ruling from Superior Court Judge James Chalfant.
But as it stands now, UTLA and LAUSD remain at the bargaining table with the deadline looming overhead and no end in sight to their bickering.
Weigh In:
What’s next for L.A.’s embattled schools?
Guests:
John Deasy, Superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
Warren Fletcher, President, United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA)
Orange County journalists’ roundtable
Larry and our talented trio of Orange County journalists riff on the latest news from the O.C.: the judge’s decision on a Muslim group’s suit against the FBI, political intrigue in Santa Ana, the $50 million price tag on renovations to the Crystal Cathedral and the latest on the San Onofre power plant.
Guests:
Gustavo Arellano, editor of the OC Weekly and author of "Taco USA" and "Ask A Mexican"
Teri Sforza, OC Watchdog columnist for the Orange County Register
Norberto Santana, editor-in-chief of the Voice of OC, a non-profit investigative news agency that covers Orange County government and politics
Special forces group goes after President Obama over killing of Osama and security leaks
A group of former U.S. intelligence officers and military operatives launched a media campaign yesterday admonishing President Barack Obama.
The Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund released a 22-minute film which accuses Obama of taking political credit for Osama bin Laden’s death. Also, it goes after the White House for committing intelligence leaks.
One of the talking heads in the film, Ben Smith, is identified as a Navy Seal and says, “Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not.” The group says it is nonpartisan in nature, but some media outlets are reporting that some of those associated with the campaign have ties to the Tea Party.
How legitimate are these accusations? Will these attacks hurt Obama’s campaign like the Swift Boat ads did for 2008 Democratic nominee, John Kerry? Or is this more bluster than bite?
Dishonorable Disclosures
Guests:
Scott Taylor, President of Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, and 2010 candidate for Republican nomination to a Congressional seat in Virginia
David Mark, Editor-in-chief, Politix
Mark R. Jacobson, Spokesman for the Obama campaign; Senior advisor to the Truman National Security project; former Intelligence Officer who has served in the Army and Navy
The certain death of the daily deal
Daily deals seem to be on their way out. Their demise is heralded by the recent fiscal failings of Groupon, the site that sells discounted package deals for anything from spa trips to burgers to reading glasses. Critics of Groupon have been vocal about what they see as an inherently flawed business model.
Articles at varied news outlets like Slate, Forbes, Esquire, and even The Christian Science Monitor have voiced one opinion: Groupon has no future. Most of these critics cite the fact that there’s no barrier for competition. Companies can, and do, exactly what Groupon does. It hasn’t created enough of a niche for itself. These same critiques can be applied to any site that features a daily deal or package sale similar to Groupon.
The main reason for their demise? The competition can’t be helping, but it is the very nature of the deals that dooms them. Groupon and other sites rely heavily on the merchants that provide them with those incredibly discounted offers, and the deal sites have very little to bargain with. Groupon lures businesses—often cash-strapped ones—into the deal by promising increased exposure and customers who will spend more than their coupon amount.
However, the company doesn’t keep any statistics to back up these claims. Businesses usually just end up losing 75% of profits to bargain hunting costumers unlikely to make a return trip. Groupon and others can’t exist without the businesses that provide their deals, and those businesses seem to be getting little out of the partnership.
Are you a daily deals customer? If so, how have you taken advantage of the offers? Do you return to the businesses you get deals from? If you’re a small business owner, have you been affected by Groupon or other such sites? If Groupon is on the brink, what can consumers do to protect themselves if they’re still trying to find a good deal?
Guests:
Matt DeBord, KPCC Reporter; writes the DeBord Report KPCC.org
Rawkesh Agrawal, writer for VentureBeat, appears on Bloomberg TV and CNBC and has contributed to TechCrunch and GigaOm
Read Agrawal's consumer FAQ on Groupon and other daily deal sites here. E-mail Agrawal with any daily deals issues or negative experiences at dailydeals@agrawals.org.