[ilbegone]

I believe the commentary concerns, but does not state, a tactic in the fight over whether the schools become charter or remain staffed by teachers subject to representation by the southern California teacher's union (I'm having a block on the correct name of the union) - who gets to keep their job.

The "diversity" angle may be an attempt by the teacher's union to suggest that charter schools equal scholastic apartheid, the boogie man which is usually tossed out if the school is majority white students. However, the editorial argument will be since the majority of students are "Latino", who cares - following the usual inverted and convoluted logic presented by far left liberalism. I don't believe the opinion is motivated by far left liberalism as by opposition to the status quo at LAUSD.

After all, any "educational" organization which can stuff the ballot box at an "advisory" vote concerning the conversions of campuses to charter schools by not restricting voting to once per person and negating residency as a precondition for eligibility to vote is extremely desperate and will grasp at any straw, such as the "diversity" dodge - undermining what tattered shreds of dignity and credibility which remain. The editorial constitutes extremely mild criticism of the out there logic.

The priorities? Commentary about racial percentage and race relations, and not one word on how to fix this:

IF you're looking for something to worry about in the Los Angeles Unified School District, there's no shortage of topics: the district's inability to weed out bad teachers, its dismal test scores, its horrific dropout rate.