As for unions, you get no sympathy here (and much of elsewhere). Private sector? Sure thing. There’s an inherent checks-and-balances between union and business needs. Public sector? You live off the taxpayer and have little accountability for performance. Frankly, tenure/seniority for school teachers is a joke. Like most of the rest of the Western world, if you are good at your job, you keep it. If you are not, you lose it.

A nd Super, your comment is so ignorant and devoid of sense of history, it frightens me.

I do not agree with his vision for OUSD, in general.

I do not support his vision of full service schools. I’d prefer a school district to provide traditional academics and learning in a setting of appropriately rigorous discipline. If some children opt for and/or need a social service wrap-around school setting, then I’m happy for there to be one available to them. Otherwise, this is not the direction I’d support for all.

I would also add that while he changes the game for teachers and students in the TSA schools (and I agree, it is defacto union busting), he has sent an equally powerful statement to families in strong, popular and successful neighborhood schools, as well. The message is that their children have no reasonable assurance of attending their neighborhood school. Yes, I am referring to the Crocker issue, but not so much to rehash the problem, but to explain the greater message that it sends. Essentially, he has increased the situation of widespread uncertainty to include more and more families. You try to go to your local school, but you have no assurance of getting in. You hedge your bets by applying to others, you stress. It is not unlike the uncertainty of a pure charter set up. His actions suggest that he really does not care.

It also makes me think the TSA positions at three of our high schools, is the beginning of an attempt to (permanently) fracture the OEA.

Has OUSD responded to ANY of the questions asked here?