As regular readers know, this blog posted intensive and critical coverage of the failed iPad fiasco in Los Angeles, thanks to the many Los Angeles friends who forwarded articles and commentary. At a time when the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times continued to defend the commitment of $1.3 Billion for iPads, I questioned the legality of spending voter-approved bond funds dedicated to capital projects on disposable iPads.
Make no mistake: the iPad deal was Superintendent John Deasy’s creation. He said it was a civil rights issue. Anyone who opposed it, in his telling, did not care about civil rights.
Of course, the done deal with Apple and Pearson collapsed when journalists obtained emails showing contacts between Deasy and the winners of the contract well before the bidding. The FBI scooped up many boxes of documents and is still investigating the deal. Deasy moved on and now works for Eli Broad, the billionaire leading the national charge to privatize public education. Broad’s legacy will be: “I tried to destroy American public education…..” And we hope to add these words to Broad’s legacy: “And I failed.”
But don’t forget: the iPad mess was Deasy’s baby.
Now, however, the charter school industry (Deasy’s allies) is attacking school board member Bennett Kayser for approving the iPad deal.
This is the definition of chutzpah. Kayser, a former teacher, is a strong supporter of public education and was a critic of Deasy and an advocate for charter school accountability and transparency. That makes him an enemy of the charter lobby, which raises vast sums to silence critics. Anyone who wants accountability from the charter industry is its enemy.
Kayser’s opponent in the May 19 election, Ref Rodriguez, says he would have been more responsible than Kayser in oversight of the iPad deal. This is laughable since Rodriguez’s charter chain was recently criticized by a state audit for its lax financial practices. Rodriguez is treasurer of his charter chain. He didn’t notice, for example, that the husband of a high-level employee of the chain won a contract for food services, worth millions of dollars. Ref may have many strengths, but financial oversight is not one of them. Given his financial backing by the charter-Broad crowd, he would have been a reliable vote for Deasy.
Don’t forget to vote on May 19.
Vote for Bennett Kayser, dedicated friend of students and public schools.
Same Ol’ Same Ol’ KTM (Kill The Messenger) …
How Original …
Predictably, the L.A. WEEKLY ended the LAUSD school board campaign season with a long campaign commercial (ineptly disguised as an objective article) for Ref Rodriguez, and a smear of Kayser.
http://www.laweekly.com/news/whoever-wins-this-lausd-board-seat-could-determine-the-fate-of-charter-schools-5565005
Enraged that no mention was made of “Food-gate”, I went all OCD in the COMMENT’s section, culminating with an…
“OPEN LETTER TO THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE:
Enjoy…
———————————–
To Joshua Emerson Smith, (the author of the above L.A. WEEKLY article):
As with someone else who just posted, I’m also utterly shocked that you didn’t mention the troubling and shocking revelations about Ref Rodriguez that emerged from a recent state audit—the same audit that Ref’s ally Monica Garcia pulled out all the stops to keep sealed, but ultimately failed to do so. (See the video of Monica and Ref standing side-by-side at last year’s California Charter School Association shindig—this video is posted elsewhere in the COMMENTS section.)
Seriously, dude, writing an article about the Kayser / Rodriguez 2015 election, and not mentioning “Food-gate” even once is akin to… oh, I dunno…
… writing about the 2004 Presidential election and not mentioning Bush’s ill-advised invasion of Iraq, and most importantly, the fact that no WMD’s were found… therefore the entire justification for taking us into that war was all a manufactured hoax…
… writing about the 2010 Brown / Whitman gubernatorial election, and not mentioning “Maid-gate”…
What’s up with that?
To get you (and others) up to speed, here’s a recap:
In a May 2nd Los Angeles Times’ article, reporters Zahira Torres and Howard Blume detailed the troubling corruption and outrageous malfeasance that a state audit uncovered operating within Ref Rodriguez’ charter school organization, “Partnership to Uplift Communities”(PUC). Mr. Rodriguez founded this charter chain, and currently serves as its PUC’s CEO and Treasurer.
Check it out here:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-puc-audit-released-20150429-story.html
or here, ( if, like me, you’re too cheap to subscribe to the Times on-line site;-) ) :
http://4lakidsnews.blogspot.com/2015/05/lausd-charter-group-gave-food-contract.html
Employing a wealth of documentation, the state auditors cite systemic wrongdoing and illegal misuse of taxpayer funds on the part of PUC’s Director of Business and Development, Ms. Jacqueline Duvivier Castillo, and by extension, on the part of Founder / CEO, Mr. Rodriguez, and Jacqueline Elliot, PUC’s other Chief Executive.
After all, Ms. Castillo—it should be noted—was hired by Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Elliott, and works under their direction. As such, Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Elliot bear ultimate responsibility, and gave ultimate approval to the problematic purchases and decisions that that both the state audit condemned, and that the May 2 Times’ article exposed to the public.
And exactly what did Ref & Co. at PUC perpetrate?
Ms. Castillo willfully chose to misuse her position to award PUC’s multi-year, multi-million-dollar food contract to “Better 4 You Meals”, a company that, to quote the audit, is “one hundred percent owned” by Ms. Castillo (!!!). In the process, she enriched both herself and her husband Fernando—a top executive in that company, “Better 4 You Meals.”
While the charter school laws technically require Ref to run PUC as a “non-profit”, so as to prevent such profiteering by charter officials, Ms. Castillo (and perhaps Ref?) evaded this by contracting out their food service to a for-profit company that she and her husband own. (This is a common shabby practice within the charter industry… by the time such shenanigans are uncovered, that taxpayer money that these crooks pocket is gone, baby, gone… never to be recovered… as is the case with Ref’s / PUC’s “Foodgate” imbroglio.)
Again, this is all detailed to the state audit report, quoted and reported on by the reporters in the Times’ article.
The Times’ article further states:
——————————————–
“The state Department of Education, which released emails and documents about its investigation to the Los Angeles Times under the California Public Records Act, also found:
” — Duvivier Castillo failed to properly report her financial interests in the company
” — The company was ineligible for the food contracts because it lacked a health permit and relied on a subcontractor to prepare meals.
” — PUC Schools did not select the lowest-priced bidder as required.”
——————————————-
So, in addition to the gross impropriety of the process itself, and to the heinous misuse of the taxpayer money that funds charter schools like the PUC chain, Ms. Castillo’s company, “Better 4 You Meals”, operates in a substandard fashion, and thus delivered a demonstrably substandard product, as the food preparation, delivery, storage, etc. “lacked the required health permit.”
Since Mr. Rodriguez hired Ms. Castillo to work at PUC, he almost certainly knew of her business holdings and interests—i.e. her and her husband’s ownership of “Better 4 You Meals.”
Might Mr. Rodriguez have profited from any secret kickback from Ms. Castillo in exchange for approving the “Better 4 You Meals” contract? Perhaps. We do not know. If the answer is “No” and he knew that Ms. Castillo owned “Better 4 You Meals”, then why did he approve a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract for this same company ? To quote “THE SOPRANOS”, do you really think that Ref (or Ms. Elliot) didn’t “get a taste” of this? If not, what was in it for him to do so?
Furthermore, even if you assume that Mr. Rodriguez is criminally “innocent”, and really did NOT know of Ms. Castillo’s conflict of interest, then, at the very least, Mr. Rodriguez most certainly SHOULD have. That’s a key part of his freakin’ job, for God’s sake!!! His failure to know this, and his failure to do the due diligence necessary to discover it, and to remain aware of this when making relevant decisions reflects poorly on his abilities as an administrator. He also should have asked and required that Ms. Castillo produced the required health permit. At the very least, Ref is most certainly “guilty” of gross administrative incompetence and negligence. All of this renders Ref unfit to manage LAUSD’s $7-billion-dollar budget.
To date, Mr. Rodriguez himself has refused to comment on this scandal—hoping to just lay low until the election is over, as he squeaks through to an ill-gotten victory. Such silence on his part speaks volumes.
To paraphrase Harry Truman, “the buck should stop” with Mr. Rodriguez, as he is PUC’s Founder, CEO, and Treasurer.
Bennett Kayser’s constituents (like me) can tell you that “the buck” most certainly DOES stop with Bennett, as evidenced by his diligent responsiveness to their concerns (i.e. his opposition to the I-pad purchase and resulting debacle.)
The students, parents, and citizens of LAUSD District 5 can ill afford to have someone like Mr. Rodriguez to be one of only seven individuals (the seven Board Members) in charge of LAUSD finances, a solemn responsibility that Board Member Kayser—a 30-year teacher and school administrator, by the way—has approached with the utmost care and seriousness.
In the last four years—and in contrast to Ref’s record—neither Kayser nor anyone on his staff, nor anyone connected to him in any way has benefited financially from any action that Board Member Kayser has taken. Nor has anyone been involved in any corruption of any kind while he has been fulfilling the oath that he took in July 2011. Profiting or enriching himself is most certainly NOT why Bennett is serving on the board. Just as in his teaching and school administrator career, it’s not about him; it’s about the well-being of 670,000 students, their parents and the community as a whole for which he is responsible.
Unlike Rodriguez and others, it’s not a fear of being caught that drives Board Member Kayser to avoid financial impropriety, eschew personal enrichment, and remain on the “straight and narrow”; it’s Bennett’s own conscience and moral code. I can vouch for this, as I’ve known him personally for years. That’s all part of the solemn vow that an LAUSD Board Member takes when he is sworn into office. If re-elected, Bennett’s track record on this score, of course, will continue for the next four years, and for as long as Bennett serves as a public servant.
Mr. Rodriguez’ actions, as detailed in the May 2 Los Angeles Times’ article, call into serious question his own ability to do likewise.
Indeed, a key part of Bennett’s job as the incumbent District 5 Board Member these last four years on LAUSD’s board has been to manage LAUSD’s budget, and know in as great detail as possible where every penny of that $7 billion goes. This truly is a task on a par with memorizing the phonebook, but it is a job that a School Board member must be willing and able to take on. Bennett has overseen and balanced three consecutive budgets of $7 billion each, and one that services 670,000 students and the adult staff that serve them!!! Top that, will you?
How does Ref’s track record compare to this?
Well, according to writer and activist Robert Skeels, “Ref Rodriguez couldn’t keep one school, with only 100 students, balanced for nine years (9) straight! This ‘insolvent’ bad apple is Lakeview Charter, part of the Rodriguez/PUC charter chain. Ham-handed attempts by Rodriguez’s supporter to hide the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) audit of the Rodriguez-run PUC Lakeview Charter School, and affiliated enterprises, have been exposed.”
Read more of Robert Skeels’ article at:
http://rdsathene.blogspot.com/2015/05/ref-rodriguezs-game-of-hide-puc-audit.html
Again, the state audit’s report clearly calls into question Mr. Rodriguez’ capabilities in this area.
Once the audit hit the news, Ms. Castillo quickly left PUC, with PUC executive Ms. Elliot making the only public comment on the matter… stating that they didn’t know about the conflict of interest, and that there was no wrongdoing on anyone’s part.
What about Ref’s response? So far, incredibly, there’s been RADIO SILENCE FROM REF RODRIGUEZ HIMSELF. I am sorry, but the Mr. Rodriguez and the folks at PUC cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, fire Ms. Duvivier Castillo (or pressure her to resign), and then, on the other hand, claim—as Ms. Elliot has—that there was no wrong-doing on her or anyone else’s part.
If Ms. Castillo–and by extension, Ref and Ms. Elliot— truly did nothing wrong, as PUC officials claim, there is no reason for Ms. Castillo to leave PUC, and no reason for Ref to clam up about the whole sordid affair.
Innocent people do not run away (like Ms. Castillo has); guilty people do.
Innocent people don’t clam up (like Ref has); they speak out and clear their name.
If you’ve got nothing to hide, you hide nothing.
VOTE FOR BENNETT KAYSER ON MAY 19TH for the DISTRICT 5 LAUSD BOARD DISTRICT SEAT
Hey, look! Two sites just picked up my “OPEN LETTER TO JOSHUA EMERSON SMITH” (immediately ABOVE) and made an article out of it
Of course, they have both my permission and blessing… as does anyone else running a blog:
SCHOOLS MATTER:
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2015/05/citizen-jack-responds-to-la-weeklys.html
… and…
SOLIDARIDAD:
http://rdsathene.blogspot.com/2015/05/citizen-jack-responds-to-la-weeklys.html
Reblogged this on ohyesjulesdid and commented:
I’d rather have a teacher as school board member any day.
Here’s another post I left at the L.A. WEEKLY:
———————————
Somebody emailed me and asked what I meant in using the term “Smarick-ian”?
That’s a reference to corporate ed. reform theorist and strategist Andy Smarick, who has let the cat out of the bag as to their secret game plan… still available on-line. (link BELOW) In districts where there is still an elected school board, people like Reed Hastings, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, etc. finance the campaigns of corporate puppets like Ref to carry this plan out.
BELOW Smarick details this plan of using a slow, stealth charterization to cause the collapse of public school districts and public ecudation overall:
http://educationnext.org/wave-of-the-future/
(If any privatizater / corporate reformer ever tries to claim that they want charter schools to complement the public school system, or co-exist with public schools to provide parents with “a family of different school options—public, charter private”… RE-READ THIS BELOW. The privatizers don’t want co-existence; they want to conquer and devour all… and don’t you forget it—check out New Orleans… THE WALL STREET PRIVATIZERS / CHARTERIZERS WANT IT ALL).
(CAPS MINE and parentheticals () mine, Jack)
from the above link:
—————————————–
ANDY SMARICK:
“Clearly we can’t expect the political process to swiftly bring about charter districts in all of America’s big cities. However, if charter advocates carefully target specific systems with an exacting strategy, the current policy environment will allow them to create examples of a new, high-performing system of public education in urban America.
“Here, in short, is one roadmap for chartering’s way forward:
“FIRST, commit to drastically increasing the charter market share in a few select communities until it is the dominant system and the district is reduced to a secondary provider. The target should be 75 percent.
“SECOND, choose the target communities wisely. Each should begin with a solid charter base (at least 5 percent market share), a policy environment that will enable growth (fair funding, nondistrict authorizers, and no legislated caps), and a favorable political environment (friendly elected officials and editorial boards, a positive experience with charters to date, and unorganized opposition).
“For example, in New York a concerted effort could be made to site in Albany or Buffalo a large percentage of the 100 new charters allowed under the raised cap. Other potentially fertile districts include Denver, Detroit, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oakland, and Washington, D.C.
“THIRD, secure proven operators to open new schools. To the greatest extent possible, growth should be driven by replicating successful local charters and recruiting high-performing operators from other areas (see Figure 2).
“FOURTH, engage key allies like Teach For America, New Leaders for New Schools, and national and local foundations to ensure the effort has the human and financial capital needed.
“LAST, commit to rigorously assessing charter performance in each community and working with authorizers to close the charters that fail to significantly improve student achievement.
“In total, these strategies should lead to rapid, high-quality charter growth and the development of a public school marketplace marked by parental choice, the regular start-up of new schools, the improvement of middling schools, the replication of high-performing schools, and the shuttering of low-performing schools.
“AS CHARTERING INCREASES ITS MARKET SHARE IN A CITY, THE DISTRICT WILL COME UNDER GROWING FINANCIAL PRESSURE. The district, despite educating fewer and fewer students, will still require a large administrative staff to process payroll and benefits, administer federal programs, and oversee special education. WITH A LOPSIDED ADULT-TO-STUDENT RATIO, THE DISTRICT’S PER-PUPIL COSTS WILL SKYROCKET.
“At some point along the district’s path from monopoly provider to financially unsustainable marginal player, the city’s investors and stakeholders—taxpayers, foundations, business leaders, elected officials, and editorial boards—are likely to demand fundamental change.
“That is, EVENTUALLY THE FINANCIAL CRISIS WILL BECOME A POLITICAL CRISIS.
“If the district has progressive leadership, ONE OF TWO BEST-CASE SCENARIOS WILL RESULT:
“THE DISTRICT COULD VOLUNTARILY BEGIN THE SHIFT TO AN AUTHORIZER, developing a new relationship with its schools and reworking its administrative structure to meet the new conditions.
“Or, believing the organization is unable to make this change, THE DISTRICT COULD GRADUALLY TRANSFER ITS SCHOOLS TO AN ESTABLISHED AUTHORIZER.
(In other words… Bye, bye, traditional public schools—the ones accountable and transparent to the citizen-taxpayers! Hello, total privatization of schools where the public loses all input and decision-making power to the private sector! Andy Smarick’s wet-dream-come-true!)
“A more probable district reaction to the mounting pressure would be an aggressive political response. Its leadership team might fight for a charter moratorium or seek protection from the courts. Failing that, they might lobby for additional funding so the district could maintain its administrative structure despite the vast loss of students. Reformers should expect and prepare for this phase of the transition process.
“In many ways, replacing the district system seems inconceivable, almost heretical. Districts have existed for generations, and in many minds, the traditional system is synonymous with public education.
“However, the history of urban districts’ inability to provide a high-quality education to their low-income students is nearly as long. It’s clear that we need a new type of system for urban public education, one that is able to respond nimbly to great school success, chronic school failure, and everything in between. A chartered system could do precisely that.”
—————————————–
That’s the billionaire privatizers’ gameplan that, if elected, a useful (and well-paid) idiot like Ref will execute as he follows the orders of his corporate masters. In short, there’s no New Orleans’ Hurricaine Katrina to go all “Shock Doctrine” on the public school systems in other cities like Los Angeles, so what’s a privatizer to do?
Just induce a financial and political crisis that will eventrually destroy the public schools (re-read Smarick’s plan above). Again, it’s straight out of The Shock Doctrine.
Eventually, as the percentage of traditional LAUSD public schools shrinks, and the percentage of charter schools within LAUSD grows, the cost of maintaining the district’s salary, health benefits, retirement, etc.will cause the district to collapse from within.The end game is then to replace our current board (and democratic system) with a small pseudo-“board” whose sole function is to rubber stamp charter school authorizing… and which this “board” will then have no actual control over these charter schools’/charter chains’ functions once this new model of “board” takes over.
That means that forever after there will be… no transparency to the public, no accountability to the public, and that can and will refuse to educate all of the public—i.,e. those who are expensive to educate, and who will not produce high scores on tests… special ed., English language learners, recent immigrants, homeless, foster care.
That’s why out-of-state billionaires, Wall Street hedge fund charter proponents, etc. are pumping millions into his campaign.Even though Ref has more money, this fact can be used against him—ju jitsu stye—as it was successfully used in the Zimmer, Ratliff, and McKenna campaigns (and in Bennett’s first race for the board.)
If the public knows all this, there’s no way they will want to to vote for Ref Rodriguez (or for Tamar Galatzan, or for Lydia Guttierez, for that matter.)
Again, for a short video summary of Smarick’s plan, watch the Reed Hastings’ speech again:
(Each time I listen to this, I think, “Are these guys so clueless and arrogant to consider that someone in the room could videotape this?” Like when Mitt Romney told a business luncheon that more than 50% of Americans are moochers off the government…)
God, I got so much to say on this.
Oh.. and right after Hastings’ speech at the same CCSA celebration, guess who gets an award from the CCSA—the “2014 Hart Vision Elected Official of the Year”?
Why it’s the privatizers’ and corporate reform’s bought-and-paid-for LAUSD School Board Member Monica Garcia: (A few seconds in, look to Ms. Garcia’s left and see who’s standing there…. hint, his initials are “R.R.”.):
The best part of her speech is when Garcia courageously uses this opportunity of her acceptance speech to respectfully contradict Hastings’ fervent dream—expressed moments earlier to a rapturous standing ovation—that school boards like the one on which she serves should not be wiped off the face of the earth, as Hastings so desires… as, you know, Hastings’ goal would end two centuries of democratic control of schools in the United States… and how she and Ref Rodriguez not responding and contradicting Hastings would be a total betrayal of the voters who voted for her (and will vote for Ref) TO SERVE on the LAUSD Board, NOT DESTROY IT through a Smarick-ian, Hastings-ish slow stealth charterization / privatization.
Just kidding 😉 she never says anything of the kind… and NEITHER DOES REF!!!!! In his own speech, he could have said, “Hell no, Reed. Democracy in school governance must be preserved,” BUT NEITHER HE NOR MS. GARCIA DO NOT WANT TO UPSET THEIR CORPORATE MASTERS!!!
Seriously, when Garcia asks the charter honchos in the audience, “Do you believe that all kids can learn?” and they chant “Yes”, keep in mind that included in those charter leaders chanting are folks who have unashamedly kicked out… errr… counseled out up to 70% of their students before graduation. (see Caroline Grannan’s investigation on charter school attrition).
This election boils down to a question:
To whom do the schools of Los Angeles belong?
To the citizen-taxpayers, and most importantly the students and parents of public schools? (Vote for Bennett Kayser if you believe this.)
OR
Out-of-state (and in-state) billionaires out to profit from the privatization of public schools, and the elimination of democratic governance of schools? (Vote for Ref if you believe this.)
Just days after the revelations about the state audit on the food services contract, LAUSD released its own Inspector General audit of a PUC school.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-puc-audit-released-20150429-story.html
According to the audit, one of charter operator Rodriguez’s schools was operating for 9 years at a deficit. Who in LAUSD was ignoring this fact????? Is there any wonder why Bennett Kayser objects to the lack of financial transparency of charters as demonstrated above? Shouldn’t Rodriguez be forced or at least requested to resign from the election? Will another election have to take place if he’s found guilty of a crime with the food contract?
Allowing Ref Rodriquez to assume a seat on this flawed BOE will just complete the total sellout of LAUSD students to the charter lobby, if people have been following All the malfeasance of Ref’s charters with taxpayer funds and still vote for him, then we know they don’t cRe about Public schools or how their money is spent. Putting this charter operator on the board is like putting Dz back in the district
Here is the link to the Audit Report.
LA Weekly, a ‘Yellow’ news rag with a long and vacuous history of support of charters, (and always quoting Ben Austin, former notorious leader of Parent Revolution based in his elegant home in Brentwood, who is now a full time employee of Billionaire Rheeform vulture, Eli Broad) today ran a long article on the ‘glories of charters and the selfless multi millionaire charter operator with his 16 PUC charters, Ref Rodriguez, candidate for LAUSD BoE.’ They even call him a professor, another title he has bestowed upon himself. But no where do they mention this Audit Report and his bending of the law repeatedly over many years.
The usual Billionaire suspects have donated over $2 Million to this charlatans campaign. They are now trying to say it is all the fault of the union that this money is flowing from Wall Street to this Los Angeles election.
I just looked up the actual up-to-date donor figures at the LA County public records office under Los Angeles Ethics Committee.
As of today, the Billionaire charter school donors, a some others I assume, have contributed
$4,948,848.
to this school board election.
The small donors, plus the unions have contributed
$945,172.
Quite a disparity in these aggragate figures….so when they shout it is because of the unions huge contributions, it is cow plops.
Broad and his gang gave almost $5 Million to the two charter school candidates, Rodriguez and Galatzan, which is almost 5 times as much as other donors gave to incumbent Kayser and Galatzan opponent Schmerelson.
Ten years ago, a run for this office usually cost about $30,000. Big Wall Street money protects its’ investment.
And the propaganda from the corporate and oligarch supported reform groups will accuse any candidate they don’t own of working for “special interests” because the labor unions donate to their campaigns even if they are often outspent.
How do we define special interests—labor unions or oligarchs and corporations?
Let’s see, labor unions represent their members who are middle class working Americans. Who do the oligarchs and corporations represent—the people or profits?
Recall that Centinela Unified BOE allowed their superintendent to earn $650,000 a year on his say so. Anything can happen.
Yes, don’t forget to vote on May 19, and there are other elections taking place California on that day.
>>>>>>>>Susan Bonilla versus Steve Glazer for a state senate seat.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
All the mud slinging and lies we see in the Kayser verses Rodriquez campaign over a seat on the LA School Board is being repeated in the Bay Area between Steve Glazer and Susan Bonilla who are running for a seat in the California state senate—and the mud slinging is one sided. I haven’t seen any mud slinging from Bonilla directed at Glazer.
And Steve Glazer doesn’t seem to be spending any money on his own campaign. The flood of poster-sized flyers supporting Glazer that have poured into our mailbox easily ten to one over Bonilla’s flyers (all funded by Bonilla’s campaign and no other source) over the last few months have all been paid for by two sources: JobsPAC (AT&T and Chevron are two of the corporations that contribute to JobsPAC) and a multi-millionaire by the name of Bill Bloomfield who also heavily spent to support the Charter school supporter Marshall Tuck for California State Secretary of Education in the 2014 election (the Charter Schools Association endorsed Tuck. The teachers' unions endorsed Torlakson).
The flyers that support Glazer often tout the fact that Bonilla is supported by special interests—those interests are labor unions and the Democratic Party (even though both candidates are listed as Democrats on the ballot). I have seen no mention any of the campaign flyers flooding our mail box that Glazer’s major supporters are also special interests: corporations like Chevron and AT&T and an oligarch by the name of Bill Bloomfield (I've read that he alone has contributed more than $2 million for this camping).
Who do labor unions represent? The answer is simple. The membership of that union.
Who does Chevron, AT&T and Bill Bloomfield represent? After you answer that question remember they also support Steve Glazer.
“Bipartisan Bonilla: Experience is one reason labor backs Bonilla. A former high school English teacher, she has built a reputation in the Capitol as a workhorse who tackles tough issues. Susan has teamed up with Gov. Jerry Brown on a landmark restructuring of the state’s local education funding formula, and won bipartisan praise for her handling of the “Uber” bill last year as chair of the Assembly’s Business and Professions Committee.” …
“When Glazer was asked about the minimum wage at a candidate forum last year, he replied that, “Most of these jobs are being provided by small business people in our communities. I think you should talk to them. I think they’ll tell you things aren’t so grand,” hardly what we expect from someone running as a Democrat anywhere, especially in one of the wealthier enclaves of California.
“Glazer also has angered environmentalists by suggesting that he’d push for unspecified major changes in the state’s landmark California Environmental Quality Act (better known as CEQA). By contrast, Bonilla, scored 81 percent on the California League of Conservation Voters scorecard.”
http://www.calbuzz.com/2015/04/op-ed-why-unions-back-bonilla-over-glazer/
How much was spent on the first round (May 19 is a run off election) and where did that money coming from?
Here’s where the independent spending stands as of Wednesday:
Bill Bloomfield, businessman: $552,984 (pro-Glazer)
JobsPAC (California Chamber of Commerce): $297,494 (pro-Glazer or anti- the other two)
California Charter Schools Association Advocates: $128,202 (pro-Glazer)
EdVoice: $23,570 (pro-Glazer)
Independent Voter PAC: $7,539 (pro-Glazer)
California Dental Association: $336,631 (pro-Bonilla)
California Professional Firefighters: $154,928 (pro-Bonilla)
California Medical Association: $83,439 (pro-Bonilla)
California Building Industry Association: $66,526 (pro-Buchanan)
Working Families Opposing Glazer (labor unions): $240,829 (anti-Glazer)
Asian American Small Business PAC: $122,478 (anti-Glazer or pro-Michaela Hertle, a Republican who dropped out and endorsed Glazer)
The grand total: $2,014,619. And that, of course, doesn’t include the $669,000 the three candidates had spent as of Feb. 28 – a figure that will surely rise in these final weeks before next Tuesday’s special primary.
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/tag/bill-bloomfield
Then there is this:
7th State Senate District candidate Susan Bonilla’s campaign has filed a complaint with the state’s political watchdog agency claiming a Koch-brothers-related group has broken state laws in part by violating its nonprofit status by spending money against her.
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/category/sacramento/assembly/susan-bonilla-assembly-sacramento/
It’s horrible LA had to take a hit but maybe this will slow down the (government-promoted) rush to put this in everywhere. A “good bad example”
It’s insane to spend that much money unless you know there’s real value for students that justifies the expense. It’s irresponsible and reckless to take this big a risk with public funds.
What they’re essentially doing is covering the costs of product development for these contractors. The contractors should be paying to get in front of students with their test products, not the other way around.
I think public schools have to start recognizing that they are huge buyers and they are entitled to be in the driver’s seat regarding any contractor hoping for their business.
We’re the customer. We’re not their “partner” because they make all the money. They have to perform to our specifications. We don’t have to perform to theirs.
Chiara…did you read the government stats which were just reported this week, indicating that the Feds spent over $3.3 Billion on establishing and investing in charter schools?
Yes, the nation was founded on each vote counting, and a voice for the populace. Today, that is hyperbole.
I know it’s hard because public schools are by their nature fragmented, but they are going to have to start defending themselves.
I don’t mean teachers unions or teachers volunteering time to advocate for public schools. I mean a strong collective voice to advocate on behalf of public schools.
They deserve an advocate in government, and if they can’t elect one they are going to have to look elsewhere.
It’s ridiculous that the schools that educate 90% of children are treated like are some kind of default system that no one is much interested in. It’s ludicrous.
I think there already is an advocacy for the public schools. It is organizing and starting to cooperate and work together.
I wrote about most if not all of the major groups currently involved in: Saving Public Education and Democracy—teachers, parents and children, you are not alone
http://crazynormaltheclassroomexpose.com/2015/05/03/3754/
Thanks Lloyd for this great link to your blog. I am sending it to all my lists and hope everyone else does too. So helpful to list all our allies.
Wish you were in Santa Monica tomorrow to be at Santa Monica City College, Emeritus Auditorium, 1227 – 2nd Street, when I speak to a large group of activist seniors about our battle to save public schools.
If anyone else wants to attend this presentation/discussion, just show up there at 2PM.
https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/117253
Try this link for some of the wealthiest Rheeformers. Counterpoint to Lloyd’s list of allies.
Sometimes I have referred to the charterite/privatizer program as the Potemkin Village Plan for $tudent $ucce$$.
Think it hyperbole?
First, with Campbell’s Law in mind, remember how the actual Potemkin Villages in the old Soviet Union massaged and tortured numbers & stats to make themselves look marvelous—mirrored by today’s envious “education reformers” in their claims of charter 100% graduation rates and the like.
Second, anybody still remember how the Soviet Union studiously, consciously and with malicious aforethought literally revised the official historical accounts? You know, like airbrushing people out of photos so they literally disappeared from view and (the authorities hoped) from memory? The rheephormsters are now trying to paint their opponents as the creators, enablers and enforcers of the iPad disaster [MISIS fiasco, I think, soon to follow]. The simple truth is that the iPad train wreck was pushed, supported and applauded by the very folks that are now throwing their former ‘American Idol’ John Deasy and the policies he pushed [their policies!] under the bus.
At a certain point it is no longer possible to simply dismiss rheephorm claims as misguided idealism. This is cynical, shameless and self-serving lying.
This blog, and others like it, are important in keeping the truth—with a small “t”—alive and well.
Thank to you owner of this blog and many of the commenters for your efforts to ensure a “better education for all.”
😎