I'm working on a big thread on the the interlocking disasters of the LA school system. Part of that process is reading up and making a reference list. It greatly speeds things up when the actual writing begins and it reduces the chances of me getting my facts badly wrong.
In case anyone out there wants to play along, here are some of the sites I'm using to get a handle on the LAUSD iPad fiasco.
1. An LAUSD introduction to The Common Core Technology Project.
Troubling for its vagueness, motivational-speaker language and lack of insight into the way technology works. All problems that would get worse as things spiraled out of control.
[Though off-topic here, one of these days I'm going to have to come back to the connection between the influence of management consulting and the belief in the miraculous curative powers of standards like Common Core.]
2. The vision statement for the project
,,, because it tells us that the people behind the project are the kind of people who believe in writing vision statements.
3. An early warning about Superintendent Deasy's somewhat questionable relationship with Apple. Spelled out in more detail here.
4. Suppression of internal critics.
5. A piece on where the iPad funds were being diverted from.
6. A devastating comparison with another school district's successful iPad rollout.
7. An inside account of what went wrong from two LAUSD contractors.
8. The comically fast security breach,
9. Failure to anticipate even the most obvious complications.
10. Still more problems.
and a very nice wrap up by Michael Hiltzik.
I've been arguing for a while that ddulites and flaky management theories are doing great harm to our education system. Those arguments are about to get a bit more shrill.
Daniel McKinnon, who had been a hairstylist in Norwell, Mass., lost a court battle with his former employer who claimed that Mr. McKinnon had violated the terms of his agreement when he went to work at a nearby salon. Mr. McKinnon said that he did not think the original restriction — to wait at least 12 months before working at any salon in nearby towns — still applied because he had been fired after years of friction with the manager there. Shortly after being fired, he went to work at a nearby salon.
But a judge issued an injunction ordering him to stop working at his new employer.
“It was pretty lousy that you would take away someone’s livelihood like that,” said Mr. McKinnon, who for the following year lived off jobless benefits of $300 a week. “I almost lost my truck. I almost lost my apartment. Almost everything came sweeping out from under me.”But now talk about teacher tenure and suddenly the potential for future economic losses is a compelling reason to break existing agreements:
In striking down several laws regarding tenure, seniority and other protections, the judge said there was compelling evidence of the harm inflicted on students by incompetent teachers.
"Indeed, it shocks the conscience," Treu said.
He cited an expert's finding that a single year with a grossly ineffective teacher costs a student $50,000 in potential lifetime earnings.No data is given on how many teachers are "grossly ineffective", how confounding by school neighborhood was handled, or whether the replacement of these teachers with somebody else would necessarily improve matters. Notice how we don't show the same level of heightened concern over actual lost wages for real workers as we do about potential losses.
Interesting to ponder.