(Guest post by Greg Forster)
This morning Pajamas Media carries my column on the much-ballyhooed plan to put the management of up to 250 LAUSD schools up for bid. Back when the city school board was voting on the policy, it was sold as though it were a school choice plan – but the devil was in the details:
Earlier that day, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, stood outside the school district’s offices and told 2,000 charter school parents and other supporters that “we’re here today to stand up for our children.” Standing under a banner reading “Parent Revolution,” the name of an organization backed by charter organizers, he said: “I am pro-union but I am pro-parent as well. If workers have rights, then parents ought to have rights too.”
For good measure, he added: “This school board understands that parents are going to have a voice.”
So somehow, people got the crazy idea from all this that the reform in question involved school choice and empowering parents. “We are here to support parents’ ability to make choices,” said one parent attending the rally.
That parent got the wrong idea. The policy before the school board that day had nothing to do with school choice. It only said that contracts to manage schools could be bid out to non-profits. And bidding out the management of public schools without changing the underlying dynamic of the system has always proven to be a recipe for failure in the past.
Sure enough, when the first draft of the bidding rules came out recently, it contained a provision designed to ensure that the schools in question will not become schools of choice.
Improving public schools by bidding out the management contract is like trying to improve a baseball team with an incompetent owner by changing the team manager. As long as you have the wrong guy in the head office, you won’t get real change because no matter how good the management is, it always has to answer to the dunce at the top. To turn the team around, you need a change of ownership, not a change of management.
The same goes for schools. Right now, the government monopoly owns all public schools. Nothing major will change until we get new owners — namely parents, via school choice.
Matt was right to tout this as a slap in the face to the unions and an admission that the union-dominated status quo is catastrophic. It’s also further confirmation (if further confirmation were needed) that much of the left is turning against the unions. But that’s about where the good news ends.
Jay P. Greene's Blog 
If public schools were baseball teams then there would be a whole bunch of regulations and compliance issues that each player would have to perform in order to “enhance” their batting average.
All state licensed players will bat right handed, choking up on the bat 3/4ths of an inch and no more, performing one swing after knocking dirt out from their shoes. Feet will be placed shoulder length a part with the lead heel raised half an inch from the ground. Players will put their weight on the back foot to help transfer more energy into the ball upon contact. Players must hold their bat perpendicular to their shoulders while keeping the bat straight (no wiggling the bat). Players will take the first pitch and be allowed to swing at all following pitches except for sliders.
Pitchers must keep fast balls between 85 and 95 mph. All pitchers must be left handed, and throw overhand (no sidearm). Special needs pitchers may stand on the mound, all others must stand behind it.
If contact with the ball is made, players are to round the base by stepping with their right foot first. Only special needs baseball players will be allowed to lead off. Home-runs will be disallowed; we don’t want lower performing players feeling bad. Instead you will be awarded 3 bases. If players are on a hitting streak they will not be allowed to change their socks.
Player performance will be evaluated through a verbal interview with a manager. Managers will also evaluate players form and compliance with stated rules above but will not evaluate player based on accumulated stats. All players must play in line-up regardless of performance.
Players which may have violated the law will ride the rubber bench, but may still be paid until the issue is resolved in the court. Bad players may not be fired until three consecutive poor evaluations, two arbitrations with union reps an arbitration with the team owner and a consensus agreement among team owners. Players may appeal termination to a final arbitration board and be allowed three more evaluations over the next two years.
Players may increase salary by attending professional development batting cages, but only if players used state approved waffle ball bats at the local college batting cage. 15 credit hours of waffle ball batting can earn you an additional $5,000 a year.
Baseball fans must attend the home games of their favorite teams, so long as they are zoned for that team. Occasionally variances to become fans of another team will be allowed, but only in a two week period at the beginning of the season, and only if your team failed to make the playoffs 3 years in a row.
Well that certainly filled my “baseball metaphor” needs through the balance of the century….
Greg, thanks for shedding some light on the LAUSD announcement. Coming as it did out of left field…oh darn, a baseball metaphor…I really wanted a bit of explanation.
This explains it and as eyewash it makes perfect sense. The public education status quo is under unrelenting pressure for greater educational choice and so is finding ways to give the appearence of movement in the direction they’re being pushed without, in fact, giving up any of their perquisites and power.
Problem is, having to give the appearance of acquiescing to public pressure for more choice is occurring because the proponents of change are no longer put off by the might of the public education establishment and political power mustn’t be used where the danger of failure isn’t worth the prize. So the appearance of choice is won with much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments from the opposition while the reality of choice is still denied to parents.
But that’s a delaying tactic designed to hold choice at bay until public attention inevitably wanders and a tacit admission that the public education establishment is no longer the undisputed master of the debate.
Too bad some bright, young political thing hasn’t noticed that charters inevitably get by on less money then district schools, while just about as inevitably, producing superior results. So much of that nice, district revenue could go toward putting a smile on the face of other, money-hungry constituencies if only there were some way to do public education without a central office staff.
My pleasure! The difficulty of writing the column almost caused me to balk. To do this kind of thing you really need to think outside the box. But I really felt the public discourse on LAUSD needed a change-up. I wouldn’t want to just stand by while the good name of school choice was being stolen. And I’m always happy if I can help correct an error. So I’m glad I was able to give you an assist!