City Year/Flickr

LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy at an AmeriCorps event

Los Angeles Unified School superintendent John Deasy submitted his resignation this morning, after more than a year of turmoil and conflict with the seven-member elected school board. Deasy reportedly cut short a trip to South Korea to negotiate the terms of his departure.

Deasy took over from former Superintendent Ramon Cortines three and a half years ago, when Cortines retired. In an unexpected turn of events, the board named Cortines, now 82, as interim superintendent to replace Deasy, beginning on October 20. Cortines is one of the most experienced school chiefs in the nation, having also served as superintendent in Pasadena, San Jose, San Francisco, and New York City, the nation’s largest school district. He also served as assistant secretary for education in the administration of President Bill Clinton.

In a statement issued jointly by Deasy and the board, the board stated that “at this time it does  not believe that the superintendent engaged in any ethical violations or unlawful acts.” Deasy has been at the center of a controversy regarding a $30 million contract awarded to Apple computer that distributed iPads to students. According to the statement, Deasy will remain “on special assignment” with the district until the end of the year.

The following is the full statement released by Deasy and the board :

Today, Superintendent John Deasy tendered his resignation as General Superintendent of Schools from the District. We thank Dr. Deasy for over three years of devoted service to the District and its students. In that period of time, academic achievement rose substantially despite severe economic hardships, and the students of the District have benefitted greatly from Dr. Deasy’s guidance. We look forward to jointly celebrating all of the successes of our students that have occurred during Dr. Deasy’s tenure as Superintendent. While the District’s investigation into the Common Core Technology Project has not concluded, the Board wishes to state that at this time, it does not believe that the Superintendent engaged in any ethical violations or unlawful acts, and the Board anticipates that the Inspector General’s report will confirm this.  We further jointly desire a smooth transition in leadership. Towards that end, Dr. Deasy has agreed to remain on special assignment with the District until December 31, 2014.

Here is a link to Deasy’s resignation letter.


Comments

Leave a Comment

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


Comments Policy

The goal of the comments section on EdSource is to facilitate thoughtful conversation about content published on our website. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

Expand Comments
Collapse Comments
  1. Don 2 years ago2 years ago

    I noticed this was reported last night on LAschoolreport while I was researching the Jefferson issue.

    Hi departure has been imminent for the last few days if not weeks. Why did he spend thousands of dollars of district money to go to Korea only to cut short the visit and return? This sort of flagrant disregard for the sorry state of education finance is indefensible.

  2. Frances O'Neill Zimmerman 2 years ago2 years ago

    United Teachers of Los Angeles/California Teachers Association Win Big.

    Replies

    • Gary Ravani 2 years ago2 years ago

      Why yes, Francis. When teachers collectively, in an institution dedicated to teaching, are able to move their issues forward that can be considered a win. It is unfortunate that the interests of students have been the collateral damage for three and a half years while the Superintendent preened, postured, and set the whole district off on self-serving tangents like the iPad fiasco, the unilateral action on evaluation, the Vergara dog-and-pony-show, and the final demonstration of … Read More

      Why yes, Francis. When teachers collectively, in an institution dedicated to teaching, are able to move their issues forward that can be considered a win. It is unfortunate that the interests of students have been the collateral damage for three and a half years while the Superintendent preened, postured, and set the whole district off on self-serving tangents like the iPad fiasco, the unilateral action on evaluation, the Vergara dog-and-pony-show, and the final demonstration of management incompetence which leaves so many students without a meaningful class schedule. As a matter of fact, this departure represents a win for all stakeholders involved.

      I note on another link on this post and that as per the above article “the board stated that ‘at this time it does not believe that the superintendent engaged in any ethical violations or unlawful acts,'” that the investigation into certain acts shall remain confidential. Hmmmm

    • Manuel 2 years ago2 years ago

      Maybe. But no one at UTLA forced Deasy to send that letter of support in the Cruz case that basically condemned his own administration. He would still be there had he not done that. OTOH, maybe it was his way of giving the one-fingered salute to the Board because they had the temerity to publicly criticize his clumsily implemented iPad-for-everyone plan. Who knows? The fact of the matter is that Deasy cut almost every single school budget while getting … Read More

      Maybe.

      But no one at UTLA forced Deasy to send that letter of support in the Cruz case that basically condemned his own administration.

      He would still be there had he not done that.

      OTOH, maybe it was his way of giving the one-fingered salute to the Board because they had the temerity to publicly criticize his clumsily implemented iPad-for-everyone plan.

      Who knows? The fact of the matter is that Deasy cut almost every single school budget while getting more money from the state. Is that a way to run a school system?

      (No, I still don’t know where that “missing” money went, but it doesn’t matter at this point, does it?)

      • Don 2 years ago2 years ago

        Come now, Manuel, you can play as if you know why the parties are doing what, but this is all conjecture on your part. First you say he'd still be there if it weren't for the letter of support, then you say he planned to leave. Then you say, "who knows?" Then you end with your rather tongue in cheek advisory. It is not-so-funny to call someone a thief underhandedly. If that's what you believe be … Read More

        Come now, Manuel, you can play as if you know why the parties are doing what, but this is all conjecture on your part. First you say he’d still be there if it weren’t for the letter of support, then you say he planned to leave. Then you say, “who knows?”

        Then you end with your rather tongue in cheek advisory. It is not-so-funny to call someone a thief underhandedly. If that’s what you believe be man enough to say and why. Of course it matters where the money went. Being flip about it doesn’t suit you and is not believable.

Template last modified: