Los Angeles will vote on three contested seats on the school board on May 19. The future of public schools in the city may be at stake. L.A. now has more charter schools than any other city.
The California Charter Schools Association has targeted board members who support public schools, especially Bennett Kayser.
The Los Angeles Times reports that spending exceeds more than $4.6 million, with the largest share coming from the charter lobby. The usual billionaires have put in large contributions, including Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg, Reed Hastings (Netflix), Jim Walton (Walmart), and Carrie Walton Penner (Walmart).
“California Charter Schools Assn. Advocates has put $1.8 million into unseating Kayser. More than half a million dollars has gone into negative advertising against him.
“We’re expecting a low turnout, possibly as low as 8%,” said Gary Borden, executive director of the charter group. “But the folks who went to the polls for Ref in the primary care deeply about his campaign and we’re optimistic that they’ll make sure to vote for him again in the runoff.”
“A New York-based group, Students for Education Reform, has spent about $47,000 to assist local college students in campaigning on behalf of Rodriguez.
“United Teachers Los Angeles, meanwhile, has spent more than $800,000 on efforts to keep Kayser in office.”
Another pro-charter PAC “Great Schools Los Angeles” added nearly $500,000 to fund pro-privatization candidates.
If you live in Los Angeles and care about the survival of the essential democratic institution of public education, vote for Bennett Kayser and for retired principal Scott Schmerelson.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
So, Joe Nathan, since you put in an appearance today, I’m curious about your take on this. Is it okay, in your opinion, for charter supporters to dump tons of money into local elections to try to override the will of the people? If the people are, in fact, demanding charter schools so much, why would charter supporters not simply sit back and let democratic action rule the day?
LikeLike
Here are the exact donor funding figures from yesterday.
Ellen Lubic
May 14, 2015 at 2:27 pm
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 (and some others (of their less wealthy allies 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 (the Billionaires) shout “it is because of the unions huge contributions” (that we must donate so much), 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.
LikeLike
Even if union contributions were equal to the billionaires’ contributions (which, as you demonstrate, they are not), it still wouldn’t be the same thing. Unions (at least theoretically), represent thousands if not millions of people, so they should be counted in with the “small donors” – the contribution per person is negligible. Eli Broad and company represent no one but themselves, so the contribution per person is simply the contribution itself – milions.
LikeLike
Exactly…well stated, Dienne.
LikeLike
Predictably, the pro-privatization L.A. WEEKLY just put out a long campaign commercial for Ref Rodriguez and a smear of Bennett Kasyer (disguised as a supposedly objective article)
http://www.laweekly.com/news/whoever-wins-this-lausd-board-seat-could-determine-the-fate-of-charter-schools-5565005
In the COMMENTS section, I wrote a long “OPEN LETTER” to the writer, taking him to task for not mentioning “Food-gate”:
—————————
OPEN LETTER TO THE AUTHOR OF THE L.A. WEEKLY ARTICLE ABOUT REF RODRIGUEZ
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.
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
LikeLike
The Charter industry wants to maintain their market share and will do anything to prevent any rules and regulations that might put a crimp in the free flow of money to individuals and hedge fund managers who are making a killing. Just look at Kayser’s opponent, Ref Rodriguez. He’s a charter school operator and his schools are subject to investigations relating to operating at a deficit and conflict of interest with a food service provider. But, where is the outcry? Shouldn’t the charter industry stand up and show concern that “one of their own” is running charters that are not showing proper fiscal management?
But, don’t hold your breath. Charters schools and their operators appear to be above the law, especially when they have the backing of the richest individuals in our country.
There is a big backlash against Common Core. Why? Because the public does not want to see control over our education in the hands of one person who dictates what and how education is delivered to all children in every state. That’s a dictatorship and it’s not what we want to see happen. It’s not what our country was founded on.
LikeLike
“Where is the outcry?” indeed…educator.
I have suggested to Karin Klein that she and the editorial board of the LA Times should ‘pull’ their endorsement of the seriously tainted Rodriguez, who is the millionaire PUC Charter School chain (with 16 schools locally) owner/director/treasurer, but there is deafening silence from the only print media in LA (whose publisher, billionaire Austin Beutner, is allied with Eli Broad, and is a major donor/supporter of charters). Howard Blume today has an interesting column with some of the facts.
The LA Weekly, which loves charters and always quotes Eli Broad’s full time employee, Ben Austin, is a ‘give away’ schlock ‘yellow’ rag of mainly sex ads. This week they lauded Rodriguez as the ‘second coming’ (do birds of a feather flock together?)…however, many wonderful comments are posted there in opposition and which tell truths about LAUSD and charter lobbyists already on their BoE.
LikeLike
It’s late in the game, but I just found this speech
that current & twice-elected LAUSD Board Member
Steve Zimmer recently gave in support of fellow
Board Member Bennett Kayser’s re-election—
given at a Kayser fundraiser:
(try reading along with the transcript…
it’s so poetic you can set it to music)
————————————————–
STEVE ZIMMER:
“This (election) is NOT just about Board District 5.
This is about the ENTIRE CONTROL and FUTURE of LAUSD.
“This is about CONTROL. Make NO mistake about it.
The control of the (LAUSD) school board hangs in the balance.
“And listen…. you don’t have to applaud on this line,
but you can.
— (CROWD LAUGHS)
“I have a lot of dear friends in the room,
and sometimes we have disagreed,
and sometimes we look at an issue,
we see it from a different lens,
and sometimes there are painful moments.
“That’s true for me.
That’s been true for Jackie (Goldberg) in her service.
That’s been true for Bennett.
“But the difference between the people
who believe that it’s ALL of us TOGETHER—
—that it’s ALL of us working together,
that… that… that our employees,
that our teachers are our greatest partners.
“NOT our enemies,
NOT … NOT… litigants to be challenged in court,
NOT … NOT…. people to be blamed for
the crisis that is facing our children,
but the VERY PEOPLE who can
lift our children out of this crisis.
“Even if we disagree on some issues,
the difference between
the folks like Bennett Kayser,
the folks like Jackie Goldberg,
Jeff Horton before her…
“ … the folks… the folks who have tried
to fight the fight over the years that
I am proud to associate myself with.
“The difference between THAT and…
“And what the folks who are
trying to destroy Bennett Kayser—
NOT BEAT Bennett Kayser—DESTROY him
AS A PERSON, not just as a political figure, but
DESTROY him as a person.
“The difference between…
we who believe that it’s ALL OF US together.
“and …
“those who believe that it’s ‘us against them’…
“It’s NIGHT and DAY.
“We CANNOT let them
take control of the school board
because if they take control of the school board,
they’ll have control of who becomes the
next Superintendent of this district.
“They’ll have control over the budget.
They’ll have control over the policies.
They‘ll have control over the schools.
“And it took us too long for us to realize it—
Bennett realized it WAY before I did,
and I give him credit for it EVERY day—
“What John Deasy tried to do to this school district.
“He tried to bring public education DOWN.
And the MISIS crisis was NO accident.
That is… that WAS INTENTIONAL, because
if you read their websites,
if you read what they’re trying to do…
“ ‘Stability’ is an ugly word.
“ ‘Disruption’ is what it is about.
“But WE know
WE the teachers
WE the principals
WE the school workers
WE KNOW
WE THE PARENTS
WE KNOW that disruption causes
REAL collateral damage
to REAL children EVERY DAY!
“And Bennett and I have been
about trying to re-STABILIZE and
re-HUMANIZE our schools.
“And at the end of the day,
we are about an ALL-kids agenda—
ALL kids, NOT SOME kids.
“And if you go to a door, and if you’re on a phone.
and people say,
“ ‘Why should I care?‘
“ ‘Why should I vote?’
“PUBLIC education is about
EVERY CHILD that comes to the
schoolhouse door—those who are the most gifted,
and those who have the most DIFFICULT
of challenges that are facing them.
“What makes public education PUBLIC education is
that it’s EVERY child that comes to the schoolhouse door,
and no one, NO ONE—NOT ME, NOT anyone else—
has been a better champion of that than Bennett Kayser.
“That said…
the MOST reprehensible,
the most DISGUSTING thing that they have done
is to somehow challenge—that while
Bennett has struggled, and continues to struggle
valiantly, publicly, VICTORIOUSLY
against Parkinson’s disease,
they have SOMEHOW THOUGHT that it is okay
to suggest… to suggest that somehow,
because of this struggle, he is incapable of serving.
“Every … ANY one of us could go to a neurologist
some time over the next year,
and come out with that diagnosis—ANY ONE of us.
“And thank God we have Bennett Kayser to
show us that this is NOT a death sentence,
that it’s NOT a way of having to fade into
the background,
that you can serve with pride,
with integrity,
with intelligence
with capability.
“And DAMN THEM, DAMN THEM
for questioning that!
Damn them for questioning that!
“Don’t let that win!
“Because I’ve known Bennett for over 20 years,
but in our private conversations…
what he now knows is that there is a new
empathy for what our children with
the most challenges face.
“THERE IS NO ONE MORE APPROPRIATE
to serve on the Board of Education.
than someone who INTIMATELY
and PERSONALLY understands those challenges
because he will NEVER turn way from them.
“So these next three weeks, Bennett…
these next three weeks…
they are about you, but they are also about
the future of public education
in this country, and in this city.
“We will NOT let this stand, Bennett,
and we WILL stand by you.
“But the last thing I want to say, Bennett, is….
“Thank you for your courage, for enduring this
on behalf of all of us, and most especially
on behalf of all the children who need you
the most.
“Thank you, Bennett!”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Here’s where you can donate on-line to Bennett’s campaign:
http://www.bennett2015.com/donate-online.html
Here’s his website in general:
http://www.bennett2015.com/
LikeLike
When high-ranking California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) executives openly boast about having “generated 30% profit margins in subsequent years–with 20-30% lead generation and 20-50% close ratios.” It should come as surprise that they, and their avaricious billionaire partners, will spend these kind funds to keep the profits coming.
http://rdsathene.blogspot.com/2015/04/profits-why-ref-rodriguez-and-his-ccsa.html
CCSA’s return on investment from profiteer (and likely felon) Rodriguez will exceed all earnings estimates.
LikeLike
Once again: Best government money can buy
or
in this case, we hope not – but they will never cease trying.
The only way to fight this is organization AND
get out the vote.
LikeLike
It’s funny, because the discussion really has changed in Ohio and Michigan. Ten years ago it was 100% charter cheerleading and now we get pieces like this that flatly admit “charters are not the answer”
http://www.toledoblade.com/JackLessenberry/2015/05/15/Two-plans-to-fix-Detroit-s-troubled-public-schools-languish.html
LikeLike
On the subject of class and socio-economic status in Ref Rodriguez / Bennett Kayser election, some things need to be said.
Ref portrays himself as a poor Chicano from the barrio who cares about the education and well-being of poor Chicanos in the barrio.
Well, let’s see… because his PUC charters are unregulated, Ref can pay himself whatever he wants, and his workers as little (or as much) as he wants.
So given that unchecked power, how does Ref use it to provide for the well-being of his fellow poor Chicanos from the barrio?
Rodriguez pays himself $350,000 (a third of a million dollars) annually, while he pays his custodial and cafeteria workers—all low-income Latinos—$8/hour instead of the living wage that their counterparts in the traditional public schools get paid… while principals in traditional public schools (a brutal job in so many ways) earn only around $100,000 annually. To quote Gordon Gekko, “It’s a zero-sum game. When somebody gets money, somebody else has to lose it.” The money that Ref pays himself is money that doesn’t go to those workers, (or doesn’t get to the classroom, for that matter)
Try to live in L.A. on $8/hour.
Now let’s say that you’re a parent (or just a citizen concerned about public education) that objects to the gross salaries that Ref and other bosses at PUC receive, and also object to the custodial and cafeteria workers (all low-income Latinos) get paid slave wages… You want to go in front of the LAUSD Board (the one Ref is trying get elected to) and demand a reduction in the bosses’ salaries, and an increase in those workers’ salaries … as those are your economic peers in the community.
WELL, YOU CAN’T. Well, you can, but you’d be wasting your breath. That’s the way this whole privatized charter thing works. A huge multi-million-dollar amount of your tax money gets dumped into an account and is the school’s annual budget. That’s it as far as any oversight that the Board has from that point on. The charter bosses can spend that money any way they damn please (concerns about “Better Meals 4 You”-style nepotism corruption be damned). You can only uncover such corruption after the fact, and by that time, your tax money is gone, baby, gone… never to be returned.
Ref makes $350,000 for supervising about 3,000 students, while LAUSD Superintendent Cortines gets less, ($300,000) for supervising 670,000 students.
I would like to know exactly what Ref does in a typical 9-to-5, 40-hour week to justify getting paid that kind of cash? It can’t be improving the operations of the school, or helping teachers… critiquing instruction, helping design a lesson plan, assisting in classroom management, leading I.E.P. / S.S.T. meetings, or professional development. Ref has ZERO education, training, or experience teaching high school or working as an administrator. (Just out of college, he got in early on the whole charter school racket (1999), without ever learning anything from the ground up. He also got dubious on-line “PhD” from some joke of an on-line “university”, but that’s another story.)
As opposed to incumbent Board Member Bennett Kayser, who has 30 years in classroom followed by years as an administrator. Kayser went straight from decades of dedicated work in the schoolhouse to then serve on the Board, so he has an intimate, and detailed knowledge of what students, need, what teachers need, and, in general, what schools need.
Also… Bennet’s most certainly not in it for the money… the job pays only $40,000 year., and that’s all he earns, or desires to.
The choice is easy, but the trouble is that Ref is outspending Bennet 8-to-1…. dozens of colored cardboard stuffing your mailbox attest to this.
Now, think about that for a second. Billionaires from out of the state and within the state–money-motivated privatizers who don’t even live here in LAUSD, whose kids don’t go to school here—have pumped in $5 million total tp a PAC to elect Ref.. for a political office that pays only $40,000 ???!!
And we’re supposed to believe that they’re doing it because they care so much about the education of poor and middle class students? Does that pass the smell test? Look closer and you see how—once Ref is elected and has to power to do their bidding—they will profit from chunk after chunk of the district being given to charter school companies owned and/or allied with them (and then removed from any public oversight), and also profit from companies that they own—in whole or in part—that will reap billions in exchange for providing dubious digital learning, on-line learning, curriculum. etc. to both charters and traditional public schools.
Ref’s backers are those oxymoronic and entrepreneurial creatures that populate today’s landscape of what’s called neo-liberalism… “vulture philanthropists”… “philanthro-preneurs”. Unrelieved greed covered the thinnest false veneer of social responsibility.
If you want to keep a money-motivated privatizer like Ref Rodriguez (and his corporate backers) out of power…
if you want to keep our schools truly public—accountable & transparent to the public, controlled by the public via democratically-elected school boards, and educating all of the public, including… as the Good Book says…. the “least of our brethren”… the most vulnerable… special ed. kids, ESL kids, homeless, foster care kids… (the ones charters kick out with abandon, or refuse to accept in the first place)…
If you want all this, then donate to Ref’s opponent, Bennett Kayser—a 30-year teacher and administrator who’s not in it for the money, but for the students, and for the community. Tell eveyrone you know in District 5 to vote for Bennett Kayser–friends, neighbors, co-workers, people you went to high school with, grade school, college, whatever.
Here’s where you can donate on-line to Bennett Kayser’s campaign:
http://www.bennett2015.com/donate-online.html
Here’s his website in general:
http://www.bennett2015.com
LikeLike
The article mentions support form Netflix CEO Reed Hastings. This is the same Reed Hastings that called for the abolishing of all school boards when he gave the keynote speech at last years California Charter Schools Association convention (where Ref also spoke, but did not contradict or disavow Hastings’ speech):
Ref Rodriguez’ backers DON’T EVEN BELIEVE IN THE EXISTENCE OF DEMOCRATIC SCHOOL BOARDS LIKE THE ONE FOR WHICH RODRIGUEZ IS RUNNING.The California Charter School Association’s true and openly-expressed (BELOW) end game is to abolish the Board that meets down at 3rd and Beaudry.Their goal is to eliminate any voting or input from the public, and have unelected charter school boards—made up of businessmen, profiteers, and non-educators—free to whatever they want, whenever they want to maximize profits, and with no one to stop them.
In short, Rodriguez is cynically running for an elected position ,and to serve on an elected body that—per his masters’ marching orders—whose functioning he will endeavor to undermine and hopefully eliminate… or, failing to do that while in office, Ref will do his corporate masters’ bidding and do as much damage to the board’s functioning, and lessen the number schools under its oversight, and make as much progress towards the board’s elimination as he can while serving on it.
His whole campaign is an affront to the citizens and taxpayers in his district.Tell them a bunch of lies to trick them into voting for someone—funded by out-of-state billionaires—who will endeavor to… END THOSE SAME CITIZENS’ POWER TO VOTE FOR, AND ULTIMATELY TO CONTROL PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
In his keynote address at the California Charter School Association’s annual dinner last year, Netflix CEO and corporate ed. reformer Reed Hastings stated the CCSA’s goal should be to abolish all democratically elected school boards, and end any input and participations of citizen-taxpayers in how their tax money in spent in education, and in which people are chosen to decide how money is spent.(CCSA is Rodriguez primary financial backer… he serves on its board)
Don’t beliieve me? Watch 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…. Rodriguez has tried to downplay his connection to CCSA during the election. Really, Ref? Then what are you doing on their stage?):
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 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 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)
To date, no one from CCSA (including and especially Ref) has issued a statement disavowing the Hastings speech or disassociating themselves, or CCSA from what Hastings said.
LikeLike
REED HASTINGS (March 3, 2004):“The importance of the charter school movement is to evolve America from a system where governance is constantly changing… (i.e. democratically elected school boards, where the citizen-taxpayers have decision-making power.) to an all-charter school system, with no traditional public schools under the governance of an elected school board.
Hastings further says charter school chains are superior because “they don’t have an elected school board.” He celebrates New Orleans system where every school is a privately-run charter with ZERO accountability to the public, and where the public has ZERO power to influence their governance.
“Now if we go to the general public and we say, ‘Here’s an argument for why we should get rid of school boards,’ of course, no one’s going to go for that.School boards have been and iconic part of America for 200 years.”
Since in most cities, corporate reformers cannot do a New Orleans-style wiping out of democratically controlled school boards—as there’s no Katrina-like catastrophe to exploit—Hastings instead recommends a slow, deceptive, stealth strategy.He instructs the charter schools and their advocates to “work with districts” quietly and “grow steadily”.This means that the charter industry will falsely profess that they wish to co-exist with the traditional public schools, and complement the public school system, while the truth is that they are merely putting on that façade with the ultimate goal being the total elimination of public schools via this “slow growth” strategy.
The other prong of this strategy—one that Ref will be engaging in—is to sabotage the traditional public schools through starving of them of funds, jacking up class size, cutting the arts, libraries, etc. … all to trigger low performance… and use that low performance that they initially and actually caused, as justification for closing public schools and replacing them with private charter management.
Eventually, as the percentage of traditional LAUSD public schools shrinks, and the percentage of charter schools within LAUSD grows, they cost of maintaining the salary, health benefits, retirement, etc.will cause the district to collapse from within.The end game is a small pseudo-“board” whose sole function is to rubber stamp charter school authorizing… and no control actual over charter schools’ functions after doing so… 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
LikeLike
Somebody emailed me and asked what “Smarick-ian” mean? 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 it 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 privatization 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)
————————-
——————–
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 has no control actual over charter schools’/charter chains’ functions after doing so… 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…)
LikeLike
While I agree with not voting for these charterizers, the fix is already in as I’ve said before. I think LAUSD BOE is already bought and paid for by the charter lobby. Of course if Ref Rodriquez gets in the move to charterization will increase and no public monies will be safe from this fleecing. All current board members need to go especially if you remember that they brought Dz to LAUSD, they approved all of his failed policies, they illegal voted to terminate hundreds of veteran teachers. I can’t forget this behavior and whoever gets in, they are not a friend to public education. You’ll see. As for Ref Rodriquez, he’s a money grubbing, privateer who is the front man for his rich corporate buddies so that they can get more public monies for their supposedly public charters. Let the fleecing begin.
LikeLike