Howard Blume reports that the Broad Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and other foundations plan a major expansion of privately managed charter schools in Los Angeles.
Broad and Walton are leaders in the movement to privatize public schools, eliminate unions, and break the teaching profession. Their goals align with the extremist agenda of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The Waltons and Eli Broad have long funded privatization and Teach for America.
They are undeterred by the numerous studies showing that charters on average get no better results than public schools and that many have participated in swindles.
“One person who attended a meeting said the goal was to enroll in charter schools half of all Los Angeles students over the next eight years. Another said there was discussion of an option that involved enrolling 50% of students currently at schools with low test scores. A source said the cost was estimated to be $450 million; another said hundreds of millions of dollars are needed…
“Currently, more than 100,000 L.A. students attend charters, about 16% of district enrollment, according to the Los Angeles Unified School District. L.A. Unified has more charters, 207, and more charter students than any other school district in the country….
“School board President Steve Zimmer said that while some charters serve students well, a rapid expansion could undermine the district’s own school improvement efforts. L.A. Unified enrolls students who are more difficult and expensive to educate than those at charters, he said. Those students would be left with fewer resources if there were an exodus to charters, Zimmer said.
“The most critical concern would be the collateral damage to the children left behind,” he said…..
“Charter proponents considered it a setback when former Supt. John Deasy resigned under pressure in October. Deasy now works for the Broad Foundation as “superintendent in residence” to help train and coach current or aspiring senior school district administrators.
“Broad had said Deasy was the best L.A. superintendent in memory. Deasy’s departure may have been a catalyst for Broad to pursue an aggressive strategy outside the school system, some observers said.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Why not establish a charter school in every LA neighborhood and the lowest scoring or worst behaved students can be sent there so public schools can see how charter schools can perform these miracles? If the charter school student starts to perform at grade level and behaves, they are welcome back to the public schools with open arms at any time. But as soon as they became too much of a problem, back to the charter school they go. With all the money that Broad and Walton have, those charter schools would be well-funded and be able to give those students small class sizes or extra counseling. And the public schools could spend far less money since they would only educate the students who can be taught easily and will do well on standardized tests.
There is no point in having charter schools for the students who can do well in public schools while leaving behind the students who will not do well in public schools. We all know that charter schools were set up to do exactly the opposite. Let’s see them do it.
Pretty much.
Experiments on human subjects without consent are unethical.
So most of what passes as “reform” these days is unethical to start with.
Here is the request for a petition signing from Diane’s other post today on the LAUSD/Broad/CCSA situation.
PLEASE SIGN.
It’s not too late to save public education in California! With Eli Broad and his fellow billionaires poised to privatize education in Los Angeles, it is time to say NO! Join the campaign to repeal the charter law in California.
Join the campaign
This is the link…if it does not work, please go to the other Ravitch post and sign.
8/17Press Conference/Speak Out At Broad Foundation
Stop Destroying Public Education-Repeal California School Charter Laws
Get The Crooks Out Of Public Education
Broad Foundation
2121 Avenue of The Stars, Los Angeles
Monday August 17, 2015 12:00 noon
The Broad Foundation has just announced that it wants to double the number of public funded privately run charters in Los Angeles. This foundation has played a central role in pushing charters and privatization in the US and it has trained people like former LAUSD Superintendent Deasy who have been involved in systemic corruption. This “foundation” has placed not only management in public schools throughout the country but also has placed pro-charter and privatization supporters on public boards and agencies throughout the country. There is a sordid record of financial conflicts of interests and the concerted effort by Broad, Gates Foundation, Bechtel Foundation, Walton/Walmart, KIPP GAP, Pearson Inc, and a myriad of other profiteers to transform our public education system into a profit making scam operation that not only steals from the public but ends up re-segregating education in Los Angeles and the United States.
This press conference speak out will have teachers and supporters of public education speak out about specific violation of the education code, systemic corruption and the need not only to support the repeal of charters in California but for investigation and prosecution of the criminals involved in the massive privatization scam now going on in California and nationally.
This press conference is sponsored by
Voices Against Privatizing Public Education
Ballot Initiative to REPEAL the CA Charter School Act of 1992
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/repeal-charter-school-act-of-1992-in-ca-ballot
https://www.facebook.com/CitizensForEducationRestoration
https://notocharterschools.wordpress.com
Click to access defend-public-ed-statement.pdf
For information (415)282-1908
Roberta Eidman
(310) 651-1306
robertaeidman@sbcglobal.net
Broad and his billionaire privatizers spent tens of millions trying and failing to subvert LAUSD’s democratic process, and effectively buy control of the LAUSD school system. Alas, for all that payout over the years in supporting their various school board puppet candidates, they only managed to grab 2 out of the 7 LAUSD Board seats.
On top of that, two of their most fervent opponents sit at the head of LAUSD School Board: LAUSD Board President Steve Zimmer, and LAUSD Board Vice-President George McKenna.
But that doesn’t seem to phase them in the least.
Now, according to the L.A. TIMES piece, Broad and those same billionaires are pretty much telling us…
“You know what, everybody? We really don’t care that we lost at the polls, and you 15 million voting citizens of LAUSD rejected our plan to privatize Los Angeles schools.
“We’re just going to go ahead and do it to you anyway, and we’ve still got more than enough money, and bought more than enough clout and connections—TFA, CCSA, & politicians at every level—to put our plans into effect.
“And we don’t even need any Katrina disaster to make that happen, either. Just face it, folks. When it comes to schools, we know better than all of you citizens and parents and teachers what’s best for schools, so why don’t you just make this whole process easier on all of us?
“Why don’t all of you just accept the new privatization of schools that we’re bringing, stop complaining, and get the-hell out of our way?”
Anything the Walton family is supporting makes me very worried.
I just found this interview from the Jewish “TRIBE MAGAZINE” with LAUSD school board, who wants to stop further expansion of charters:
http://www.tribejournal.com/features/2015/08/lausd-board-president-steve-zimmer-talks-about-getting-back-to-basics/
———–
T: The recent school board election felt very much like a vote that was either pro- or anti-charter school. Is that how it feels on the board?
STEVE ZIMMER: I think there is a difference between support for existing charter schools that parents have chosen [and new charter schools]. I respect and support those choices as long as the charter is doing very well, and I mean very well.
T: Why a different bar for charter schools?
STEVE ZIMMER: Because that’s why charters are supposed to exist: either to provide something better, or unique and innovative. Otherwise there’s no compelling reason to authorize them.
T: Do you think there’s any chance to roll back the charter trend?
STEVE ZIMMER: We have the most charters of any school district in the nation. We have incredibly high levels of saturation. If choice is so important, the California Charter Schools Association agenda and the Walton Family Foundation and other foundations’ agendas to situate more and more charter schools within the LAUSD boundary is not about children. It’s not about choice. It’s not about innovation. It’s about a very different agenda of bringing down the school district, an agenda to dramatically change what is public education. It’s about altering the influence of public sector unions. I just happen to disagree with that agenda. But folks should be explicit about what their agenda is.
I’m actually very proud we have some of the highest performing charters in the country. It takes a lot for me to not renew or to close down an existing charter. But at the point we’re at, a new charter has to be compelling. It has to offer something we don’t have right now, and that is a high bar. I am unapologetic about it.
T: It seems like a lot of the dialogue relating to LAUSD pits teacher against student. If something is good for students, it’s bad for teachers and vice versa.
STEVE ZIMMER: How it’s said in my world is whether you have a kid agenda or an adult agenda. That is an incredibly deceptive political construct. Anybody who has spent their career in public school knows that’s a lie. When you’re supporting teachers, you’re supporting kids. When you create a better environment for learning, you’re supporting kids and everyone who works with them.
That lie — kids versus adults — that lie is a subterfuge about what part of the reform movement is about, which is eviscerating or lessening the influence of public sector unions. A lot of that is focused on teacher unions. Teacher unions are teachers. I’ve been very critical of my own union and the union I consider to be an ally. [But] there’s a difference between being critical of different policies of a labor union and believing that union should not exist. And a lot of money that fuels the charter and reform movement is by people who believe teacher unions should not exist.
It is long past the time to merely be worried when there is a Walton family connection. I think that NYC public school parent has made an excellent suggestion.
Less than a month ago, Diane posted the following article”:
https://dianeravitch.net/2015/07/26/los-angeles-the-charter-empire-strikes-back/
It reports that the threatened expansion of KIPP from 4000 to 9000 would negatively affect LAUSD’s bond ratings which would increase the interest rate for borrowing.
Can you imagine what Broad’s plan would do?
Thanks for this information. Your blog is a crucial resource that we need to become aware of all that is going on in this country in the name of educational reform, although the motives and agenda of much of this have little to do with furthering education.
Although there has been resistance, it has been disconnected and local, and even when it has made progress, as in Chicago, victories at the union level have been turned into defeats by politicians, such as Chicago’s mayor, Rahm Emanuel, catering to the wealthy and powerful forces that are set on the destruction of both the commons provided by the public schools and other public institutions (such as libraries) and what remains of unionism in this country. No doubt, they will turn their attention, in due course, to the public universities as well, where there still are voices that attempt to counter the dominant narratives that are used to brainwash the public via the bought or cowed media.
So it seems that unless the local resistances cannot succeed unless they are connected and to some extent coordinated. Blogs such as yours help in this.
But awareness is still low among the rank and file of the teachers. They are aware, in the main, only of the most local issues–in their department in their school–and they mainly only respond when their own personal job security or pay is threatened.
You might not agree with this because of all the millions of hits you get on your blog and from all the comments you get on it–as well as from your knowledge of other blogs that are also forums of resistance. But when I talk to teachers at my high school here in Brooklyn, NY, what I discover is, in the main, with some exceptions, ignorance, apathy and even acquiescence to all that is being thrust upon teachers nationwide. Quite a few of the teachers are staunch Republicans, anti-union (believe it or not) and some are still fans of our former mayor Michael Bloomberg. These blame whatever ills were imposed on our schools during his time on factors out of his control–such as mandates from the state. I know this sounds incredible, but it is true. Now that Andrew Cuomo has far surpassed Bloomberg in his attack on public education and on teachers, I suppose these folk will blame his Democratic affiliation or even cheer him.
Setting aside these “extremists” in our midst, quite a few of the other teachers are profoundly unhappy about the direction the schools have taken. I am not talking here about the charter schools, which have not yet been perceived by teachers in schools such as mine as the threat they are. I am talking about the situation in the public schools, especially those ensuing from Bloomberg’s actions but even more so from the new evaluation system forced on us by Andrew Cuomo’s vitriol and endorsed in part by our new Chancellor, Farina (with the tilde over the n). While she is a skeptic when it comes to testing (which is good), she is bent, even more than the previous chancellors were, on getting rid of “bad teachers”. And she is a zealot for “professional development” — which is now tied into the Danielson framework, which is a prescription (if applied unthinkingly and punitively) for the death of teaching and learning in our schools.
The basic hypothesis has remained the same — that teachers are the cause of the problems in the schools. Once this hypothesis is accepted, then it follows that the way to fix the schools is to fire the “bad” teachers and to “improve” the rest. The possibility that this hypothesis is incorrect — that poor teaching may not be the first, second, third or even the tenth-ranking cause of the problems that plague the schools–is never considered.
If you count up the total number of teachers in the schools countrywide and then compare that number with the ones who are active in resistance (which, from being employees, is by necessity confined to being vocal and voting in union and other elections) I believe you will find that the ratio is rather disappointing. Of course, it is hard to figure out the second number, and I could be very wrong.
I think that one of the things that is needed is a practical consensus among teachers (and perhaps parents) regarding what K-12 education should be: what are its purposes, in what environment should it operate, what are the things in which teachers should be granted autonomy and what are the things in which they should not, how should curricula be designed, who should be doing it, which resources are essential and which are not. For this, we need free conversations at the local level so the consensus can bubble up in a somewhat organic fashion. What is needed are not strict diktats, but broad guidelines. Of course, in designing the content of the curricula, detail, logical sequence, connections, and much more are needed, including tapping into experience and trying out curricula, gathering feedback, rather than imposing them. The “standards movement” had long given up on all of this.
Most teachers are too harried and pressured to be part of this at present. This is a problem. There are others who are far too complacent, unfortunately.
Out here in L.A., I agree that we definitely need to do a better job of educating the rank-and-file teacher.
All the comments here are terrific! Thank you so much!!
Beware the SEIU:
Eli Broad, Green Dot charters, SEIU, and the Parent Revolution…connected.
“Steve Barr noticed that at one of Green Dots’ high schools, a large proportion of students has parents who were members of Local 1877 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). From this observation, a partnership evolved between Green Dot and SEIU’s national organization, as well as its Los Angeles affiliate. While most professional unions have opposed charter schools, SEIU has embraced LAPU’s reform agenda because their members’ children are the main victims of failing urban schools. For almost a year, SEIU has formally worked with Green Dot and LAPU, providing LAPU with both funding and technical assistance from experienced organizers. In turn, SEIU is interested in exploring how Green Dot’s model and LAPU’s organizing efforts can drive school reform in other urban districts across the country.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×8139874
Piggybacking on Richard Holsworth’s astute observation on SEIU in Los Angeles. Wonder if their rank and file have ever seen Green Dot Corporate Charter’s remediation rates. They’re staggering: http://j.mp/TUCK_FAIL
I have always been baffled at why SEIU has supported charters when so many of its members are parents in our public schools. Now I see from Richard Holsworth’s comment that it was precisely why they were targeted. Jeez.
“A rapid expansion (of charter schools) could undermine the district’s own school improvement efforts. ”
This is a strategy. The CEO of the NewSchools Venture Fund says that local district improvement efforts in public schools are “at risk” if 20% of students exit to charters. The aim is to get more districts at or above this “tipping point” especially large urban districts ASAP, in addition to the 31 districts that already exceed this threshold.
The pretense of expansion focussed on “underserved communities” is vanishing in favor of using any means to eliminate school boards and “bring to scale” more franchise operations like KIPP (the largest). What these enlarged franchises are doing under the banner of disruptive innovation is nothing less than reconstructing much of the current architecture of a school district or regional educational agency, but with unelected officials and managers.
Most of the people at the top of the payroll pyramid who do not need to know much (or anything) about education in order to meet performance targets for budgets, gather measures of outcomes for students, and seek measures of client satisfaction sufficient for marketing.
There is no sense of obligation to provide continuity in educating the nation’s students. The franchise is a one-size-fits all program not radically different from the “Academy in a Box” program engineered in the USA and exported to Africa and India. These grants-based and “venture-capital” initiatives are structured to expand ASAP. Open and close the schools as needed for measures of corporate performance, even for “non-profit” corporations.
The students, teachers, and parents are regarded as moveable and removable chips in a game of expanding so-called choice schools. Just close up the operation on short notice, leaving the students, parents, and personnel in limbo is part of the cost of doing business.
The pretense that these are public schools is kept alive because it is a marketing strategy. It is well-known than many charters are choosing their students either on the front end of the application process or by counseling out those who are not willing or able to meet “expectations.” The grants-based, billionaire-financed initiatives are inherently unstable. The grants are almost always time-limited in addition to being ego trips for the billionaire funders. After the start-up phase is accomplished the energy and talent on board migrate into recruiting and fundraising in order to keep the operation going.
Venture capitalists and entrepreneurs in education who are operating with money from billionaires seek rapid and dramatic change. They are tolerant of risk-taking with the nation’s students. They have a rule-breaking mind set for starting ventures but they are often intolerant of deviations from their branded system of instructional “delivery.”
Venture capitalists and entrepreneurs who are operating with money from billionaires are critical of existing institutions like public schools. public universities, teacher education programs located in public universities, and teacher unions. Such institutions, even if widely varied and undergoing change represent the “sluggish status quo.” They seem to think that change is always better…. even if you throw out the baby with the bath water.
Entrepreneurs think that “better results” can be created by working totally outside of their often stereotyped view of “status quo” organizations and institutions. In these new contexts for education they can break rules, risk failure, create “breakthrough” policies, and not worry about collateral damage–especially to students. They are not far removed from the status of guinea pigs in the latest, greatest experiment.
The latest trick in this environment for schooling is hiring outside evaluators to produce “research” that is great for publicity, good-looking in graphic design, widely distributed, even if deeply flawed, and never peer reviewed (or if so, after the fact and in low visibility contexts). Or, if you have the wealth of the Waltons, you just endow (buy) a whole university department and the faculty to churn out publicity posing as research.
Billionaire funded-entrepreneurs in education pursue opportunity without regard to the resources they currently control or the prospects of “collateral damage” to this generation or to the fabric of democratic governance of many institutions, including public schools.
Their “authority” to exercise this power comes only from an excess of money and a lack of imagination about how to use it other than by displays of power and arrogance.
Some quotes from the comments section of the Howard Blume article that I found memorable:
“$450 million to “improve” education for roughly 250,000 students? That’s $1,800/student.
If they (meaning Green Dot, PUC, et al) can’t get the students they send to CSU prepared enough so that most of them don’t have to take remedial classes and they’ve been doing it for years, what makes them think that adding $1,800/student to their budgets is going to be the magic bullet?
Are they serious about this?
And where are they going to put them? Are they going to take over existing LAUSD campuses? How? Convince the local teachers to convert to charters on their own? Pull the parent trigger on them? How many “triggers” have been successful in LAUSD?
Are they really serious about this?
I think this is nothing but psychological warfare on LAUSD.”
“Charter schools deny parents and other taxpayers the right to a voice with a democratically elected school board. The charter boards can pocket our tax dollars and put unqualified temps in front of overcrowded classes. There is no transparency and no accountability, except to the big banks who expect a monetary return on their seed investment.
Also, let us always be mindful that the LA Times parent company is the Tribune Company, of which Eli Broad holds a controlling share.”
“Please note that Moody’s could lower the bond rating for LAUSD causing the district to have to pay more interest on borrowed money. Can you imagine what Broad’s plans would do?”
“In simple terms…charter schools siphon money away from public schools in the guise that charter schools can better educate any student. The sticking point is that charter schools operate under their own rules and guidelines (not the same ones that public schools MUST operate) and do NOT have to accept any student into their schools that they do not want there. While under the guise of being openly public schools, they are, in fact “selective” “public” schools funded by taxpayer money.
Public schools must educate ALL students regardless of background, disabilities, etc. No student can be turned away.
(Let’s imagine that you, as a taxpayer, help to fund a public park in your neighborhood. The public park becomes a “charter” park and you and your family are told that you cannot use the park. You don’t meet the park’s criteria for whatever reason. But you PAID to have this park constructed with YOUR tax money! Doesn’t matter. YOU can’t use it. Sound fair?)”
“I am *NOT* a teacher. I’m a taxpayer, and I want my tax money going to 100% above ground organizations with accountability. Charters are black holes for tax dollars because the taxpayers are not allowed to look at the books, we’re not allowed to make rules about what is taught, and we’re not allowed to decide how the school is run.”
“My neighbor’s daughter across the street received a “recruitment letter” from Granada Hills Charter when she was in 8th grade, even though she lived outside the Granada district. They have a waiting list of open enrollment candidates each year that numbers near 2,000. Because my neighbor’s daughter was an excellent student (they mentioned that she might be interested in joining their Academic Decathlon team), however, she somehow managed to get into Granada without going through the open enrollment process.
Granted that this is a single anecdote, but having taught at the school when it was petitioning for charter status, I could tell you a great deal more about the joys of teaching there and the myriad ways they undercut and eliminated staff who questioned their methods.
This school now has a student population which is nearly 50% gifted. Is there something about the water in Granada Hills, or could the intellectual prowess of their subjects be due to their “selection process”?”
“Got to hand it to old Eli Broad. He just keeps on trucking, won’t stop until he and his fellow billionaire privatizers own every vestige of the Public Commons. In the current American landscape, our 1% apparently have no better use for its accumulated treasure than to systematically pillage the community.”
“We also need an article on Broad and remind people that Deasy was his choice for LAUSD superintendent. When the iPad scandal erupted, Broad was no where to be seen. But, now that some time has passed, he rewarded Deasy with a choice job at the Broad Foundation. Shouldn’t we assume that’s because Deasy did exactly what Broad wanted him to do? He left LAUSD in shambles thanks to the iPads and MISiS. Now, we are so financially strapped that the likes of Broad can come in and claim to have the answer to “saving” our schools. Great job Deasy…….you are true Broad disciple.”
“Teach for America is a joke. Teach for two years? Would you trust a doctor with no experience? A lawyer? An architect? A dentist? How about young teams vs veteran teams in the NBA? Experience matters. Only teachers can be insulted like this. Teaching is a craft and young teachers just aren’t as good at the craft as savvy veterans.”
“If billionaires wanted to improve the lives of poor children, they would stop offshoring jobs and pay their workers a decent wage. Stealing from disadvantaged children and calling it civil rights is beyond obscene. No wonder Eli Broad’s own children want little to do with him.”
Are they serious about this?
— Very much so.
And where are they going to put them? Are they going to take over existing LAUSD campuses?
— Yes.
How? Convince the local teachers to convert to charters on their own?
— Yes, they’ve done that before.
Pull the parent trigger on them?
— Yes.
How many “triggers” have been successful in LAUSD?
— None so far, as the local community was able to rally.
Are they really serious about this?
— Very much so.
I think this is nothing but psychological warfare on LAUSD.”
— Bingo!
Why would anyone think these people really want to help poor children? They fight a living wage for their parents, they fight the efforts of the parents to organize at work, they fight against work rules that would allow parents to attend school functions or stay home with a sick child, they fight against affordable health care for those same children, or supports for adequate food. But all of a sudden, they are concerned about their education??? Oh please. They want money, and lots of it, with no pesky government budgeting oversight. And the LA Times continues to pretty much support them. They think Deasy failed because of his brash personality, not because his ideas were awful.
Exactly.
We all my think Donald Trump is a buffoon and a bizarre spectacle for our Ringing Brothers amusement, but we all owe him a debt of gratitude for ripping the charade off how “business” is done in America.
In Thursday’s GOP debate, Trump quite honestly stated that he buys politicians and expects favors in return. He calls everyone else naive and idiots if they don’t know how the system works.
John Deasy was the Trojan Horse in the world of LA’s public education.
After he was installed in LAUSD, Deasy proceeded to implement the business model he was weaned on all his life while he was superintendent.
The grotesque pedagogy was brought to LA and enacted by Deasy throughout his tenure. Deasy entire career was sponsored by the financial system backed by Bill Gates or Eli Broad.
It is helpful to remember the name Robert Felner whose guidance and tutelage would be instrumental in Deasy’s life. Felner was Deasy’s loving University of Louisville mentor who would teach him everything that Deasy would later apply throughout his career.
I won’t even go into how the ethically vile Deasy played ignorant in how he was allowed to receive a 9 credit PhD in such a short span. Felner chose Deasy has his ONLY doctoral candidate in his six years at Louisville. These two men worked intimately with each other and Deasy learned much from this man…Deasy’s dedication in his PhD reads: “I would like to thank my major professor. Dr. Robert Felner, for his guidance and encouragement. His help goes beyond this work and to the real work of leadership in our public schools.”
.
What became of Robert Felner?
He was sentenced to 63 months in prison for his role in defrauding U of L and the University of Rhode Island of $2.3 million,
While hopscotching from district to district on his way “up” all the while being groomed by the richest people on the planet, Deasy became enthusiastically championed by former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. He found an ally with the neoliberal education policies of the LA TIMES who heralded him and his brash business style as the savior or LAUSD. The supposedly “liberal” school board members failed their duties time and time again in reigning in Deasy and fell over themselves in fawning public flattery of this man and his methods.
Eli Broad paved the way for Deasy by the standard business practice of “buying” his way into LAUSD and offering to “pay” for some positions. The BOE had ZERO problem with this. The Charters gained tremendous footholds in Deasy’s years, but there was NEVER A SECRET to what Deasy’s goals were.
Anyone who pretends otherwise would get called idiots by Donald Trump.
Donald Trump completely understands how the system works and so does Eli Broad. In fact, their paths to their own personal fortunes have a remarkably similar trajectory with their own strategic use of laws favoring the insanely rich to help build their treasures to stratospheric heights.
John Deasy has always been enthralled by these titans of capital and has been their powerful champion to push through their privitization/technological/charter agendas.
It should be noted that LAUSD’s General Consul David Holmquist has used his position to approve everyone of Deasy’s and Eli Broad’s initiatives. He has been instrumental in Deasy’s reign and has provided “legal” cover for almost every disaster that has befallen the district.
It is ESSENTIAL to remember that NO ONE at LAUSD’s TOP has ever been held responsible for anything. They all are hyper-aggressive (like our friend Donald) in asserting everyone else’s culpability while never once accepting responsibility for the folly that has made LAUSD a laughing stock across the nation.
Fast forward to the IPad and MISIS catastrophes and up until the very end, John Deasy patted himself on the back for his genius and methodology. John Deasy would contend that if there were any faults at all it’s because HE CARED TOO MUCH for the kids of LA (unlike all those others who hated Civil Rights for children of color). Every time Deasy had a chance to paint himself like Martin Luther King.
And Eli Broad claimed to be Gandhi by extension.
These people are awful just as moral human beings but when they are put in the education arena and one sees how the interests they champion are EXACTLY the same as Donald Trump’s, then it is beyond the pale of decency.
John Deasy left LAUSD and its children in a much more weakened position. Although he desperately wanted a job in Washington with Arne Duncan who shares the same ardor for Deasy as Robert Felner (and for much the same reason), he had to go somewhere. The Eli Broad bosom took him in with a phenomenal paycheck and zero public accountability. John Deasy’s dream position.
And now, as one reads this heart wilting Howard Blume piece where the goal of Deasyism is to have 50% of all LA’s children in a charter in eight years, we can clearly see his political and economic pedagogy in the full light of day.
What America has to decide is who they think really has their children’s best interest at heart (Wait…I mean to say EVERYONE’S children–not just the rich and most able).
Is it Eli Broad and John Deasy?
Donald Trump surely would back these guys’ proposal a thousand percent, recognizing it is a fantastic investment for his portfolio.
And to his credit, Trump would at least he would be honest about his motives.
Brilliant. So Trump serves to name–and thus undermine–the very agenda of the party whose nomination he seeks.
Well, just as progressive American voters need a candidate to articulate a response that counters that pro-corporate agenda, Los Angeles public school advocates like you and me want their elected leaders to articulate a vision that counters the pro-corporate charter agenda. We don’t need a debate, but we need to hear their position. The school board needs to state it clearly.
Unfortunately, the privatizers succeeded in placing one of their corporate puppets, Ref Rodriguez, on the board, after running the most dirty campaign in LAUSD history.
Here are some posts on privatization:
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—Broad, Gates, Walton, etc.— 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.
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
Rodriguez is on the payroll of Loyola. The dean of the Ed. school there, Shane Martin, is quoted in the LA Times article.
Schools Matter:
“…Sadly LMU’s education department faculty and administration is dominated by neoliberal privatizers, like Shane P. Martin, who actively work to destroy public education at the behest of their corporate sponsors. The one exception to LMU’s complicity with the Broad/Gates/Walton Triumvirate is that of renowned Freirian scholar Professor Antonia Darder, who writes brilliant essays like Racism and the Charter School Movement: Unveiling the Myths. Darder’s is the sole voice of reason in LMU’s cacophony of corporate concerns.”
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2015/04/is-cnca-paying-parents-to-support-ccsas.html
I’ve seen that passage of prose before 😉
Somebody emailed me and asked what “Smarick-ian” means? 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:
While we’re at it, who can forget Steve Zimmer’s condemnation of the privatizers during this campaign
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, publically, 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!”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
What’s telling is how Zimmer has done “a total 180″ on John Deasy. Remember the days when Zimmer would reverently refer to Deasy as “a catalytic change agent” for schools and children?
(That “change agent” quote is from a radio interview with someone (Adolfo?) that is somewhere on the net… right after Zimmer’s & the Board’s October 2013 Board vote to keep Deasy and extend his contract.)
Well, that’s all over, apparently. In this latest speech, Zimmer accuses Deasy of deliberately causing “disruption”, and willfully wrecking any “stability” in LAUSD, in order to further privatization, even if that meant causing “real collateral damage to real children EVERY DAY” in the process.
In essence, Zimmer argues that corporate reformers / privatizer ultimate “ends”—privatization in the long run— justify the means—“real collateral damage to real children EVERY DAY”—in the short run.
That’s some pretty rough stuff.
In the middle of the speech, Zimmer concedes that Bennett Kayser had tried to warn Steve about all of this, but Zimmer says that he had dismissed this idea… until now., that is..
Zimmer says that… finally… he gets it.
Also, Zimmer apparently gave this speech totally “off-the-cuff”, without using a teleprompter, cue cards, or speech cards or whatever.
Impressive.
To pull this off, you can’t fake it. You really have to feel it in your core… Steve does… it shows…
STEVE ZIMMER… in pursuit of the privatization of LAUSD schools, the privatizers have “crossed new frontiers of depravity … ” The Ref Rodriguez campaign—“(Broad, Gates, Walton, et al) have crossed new frontiers of depravity in this campaign. This is the most amoral type of campaigning, using a type of lies and distortion, that lowered the entire moral climate of political discourse… ” engaged in ”
In describing his efforts to compromise or work with them, Zimmer said, “I come to them with olive branches, they respond with napalm.”
Here are those quotes in context:
——-
Steve gave an interview with L.A. SCHOOL REPORT about the speech, and in the different context of a one-on-one interview, found him to be… STILL EVERY BIT AS PISSED OFF AS HE WAS IN THE SPEECH.
http://laschoolreport.com/zimmer-damns-rodriguez-and-his-supporters-for-attacks-on-kayser/#more-34835
———————————————————
In an interview with LA school Report today, Zimmer doubled down on his scathing criticism of Rodriguez and CCSA.
“(Broad, Gates, Walton, et al) have crossed new frontiers of depravity in this campaign. This is the most amoral type of campaigning, using a type of lies and distortion, that lowered the entire moral climate of political discourse… ”
” … ”
“Over six years on the board Zimmer has strived to take on the role of peacemaker/conciliator/mediator on a number of divisive issues… But, Zimmer says, those days are over.
“In describing his efforts to compromise or work with them, Zimmer said, “I come to them with olive branches, they respond with napalm.”
“ ‘I come to them with olive branches, they respond with napalm,’ he said in the interview referring to the interests that would align with Rodriguez.
“CCSA has spent several million dollars in mailers, radio and television advertisements boosting Rodriguez’s qualifications and assaulting Kayser’s character. One mailer calls Kayser a ‘slumlord millionaire’ who ‘forces tenants to live in filth.’
“Another flyer featured a group of brown-skinned children below Spanish that translates to:
” ‘Bennett Kayser tried to stop Latino children from attending schools in white neighborhoods.’
“On the other side, it says,
” ‘He’s not for us.’
“An LA Times editorial following the release of the ad accused CCSA of engaging in ‘slimy tactics on behalf of children.’
“And, a commercial equating Kayser to a 90s movie villain — Kayser Soze — ended with the shattering of a coffee cup. Kayser allies argue it is a thinly veiled allusion to his Parkinson’s disease.
“ ‘Where is the middle ground when people are trying to destroy a human being?’ Zimmer asked… Zimmer says Rodriguez, as a charter school founder, bears ultimate responsibility for the tone of his campaign.”
” … ”
“Zimmer, an educator for more than 20 years, said the attacks against Kayser amounted to attacks against him. ‘They’re against everything I stand and everything I’ve tried to do,” he said. ‘They’re saying,
” ‘ I hate you. I hate you. I hate you.’ ”
” … ”
” ‘I talk about re-humanizing teachers and the district and that includes board members,’ Zimmer said. ‘We are human… how can we not take these attacks personally? ‘ ”
————————————————————
My colleagues above, Jack, Geronimo, Educator, and West Coast Teacher, lay out the framework of how Broad and Deasy and their billionaire supporters like Riordan, Beutner of the LA Times, the Lyntons of LASR and Sony, and the ever greedy Waltons, and so many others who idolize the Free Market, have tainted public education with ongoing publicity they devised to invalidate public schools and public school teachers. This long term plan to privatize public education for profit, seems to have worked in their behalf.
Many of us have been writing about LAUSD for some years and the assault to charterize this district. Robert Skeels, Cynthia Liu, Karen Wolfe, Jack, Julie Tran, Julie, Paula Hurdle, Carl Petersen, and others are names of those who report here on the facts of the takeover at LAUSD. But it is rare to read about this in the LA Times, the major print media in the LA area, nor the NY Times, nor to hear of it on the TV news or PBS, nor on reports by shows like 60 Minutes.
And no where does this Blume article mention that John Deasy is being investigated by the FBI and the SEC for possible felonies commited by him as Supt. of LAUSD. Eli Broad continues to use Deasy as his hatchet man to undermine public education by using him and his equally corrupt partner from Parent Revolution, Ben Austin, to be the voices for new Vergara lawsuits throughout California and the nation, and to establish more invasive charter takeovers in Anaheim and throughout the state based on the flawed Parent Empowerment Act of 2010 law devised by Austin (with his Walton/Broad backers) and former State Senator Gloria Romero.
These economic vultures have devised the most egregious plan in US history to use taxpayer money to fund their charter schools, while they become great Wall Street investment opportunities, and to eventually bankrupt school districts and grab all the public assets at pennies on the dollar, using our schools and real estate for their own enrichment.
Where are the investigative reports on all this? Where are the citizen responses?
addendum…I am personally both saddened and alarmed that we who have approached Bernie Sanders (through his lifetime friends and associates) to ask that he meet with Diane Ravitch so as to discuss his views on public education v. privatizing, have received NO reply from him nor from his campaign. I find this alarming.
How about you all here who are, like me, supporters of Sanders, at least for now?
Ellen, I think it smart to make public that request and the Bernie Sanders campaign’s refusal to respond, like you have done here. Education activists’ automatic support of Bernie has confounded me. Instead of leveraging the political force that the public education advocates have built, most seem to be content to guess which candidate will support our cause and throw their support behind him. This is no way to move an agenda forward or to impact an election.
The timing of this plan is no surprise at all. The powerful California charter lobby seems to be at their wits end after recent losses. Let’s assess.
The first big loss was Steve Zimmer’s election two years ago, despite their spending more than any previous school board race in US history, according to published reports at the time. Subsequently, the corporate privatizers have lost almost every time a vote has been put to the people.
Last year’s election of Tom Torlakson for California’s State Superintendent was seen as a referendum on corporate privatization–and we public school advocates won. California is one of the few states that resisted Race to the Top reforms.
The LA teacher’s union election also brought in leaders with a broader understanding of the fight for public schools. They still need to prove their mettle at building support among parents and student groups who seek an ally in improving our schools without selling them off. But the potential looks better than before. CTA, the state teachers union, remains a strong force in the state capitol, despite the charter lobby’s increasing presence.
The L.A. Mayor’s office is no longer carrying the water of the corporate privatizers either. New Mayor Eric Garcetti has resisted the repeated taunts of Broad and the other plutocrats to push their agenda. Garcetti is a distinct departure to his predecessor, the self-proclaimed “Education Mayor” Villaraigosa, who was trying to share the national charter stage with Bloomberg and Emanuel.
A notable exception is the election of disgraced PUC charter founder Ref Rodriguez to the school board, joining his charter cheerleader Monica Garcia. But now Steve Zimmer is board president and, if that position carries any weight, it might be making the charter lobby nervous. Often the swing vote in a split-down-the-middle board, Zimmer is now presiding over a new board that should give him more courage than he has previously displayed. His unwavering support of John Deasy and his support of almost every single charter school petition that came before the board have alienated many of Zimmer’s backers. We are anxious to see him prove himself to be the champion of our neighborhood schools that he recently proclaimed he was (in an AFT video posted on this blog).
This revelation that the charter groups have lost their patience and are announcing a public attack should be met with redoubled resistance. We have done the work to elect officials who will champion our public schools, even against wealthy special interests like the groups in this article. But the board needs to listen to community members and truly consider the supports that are necessary to enable our neighborhood schools to stand up to the threat of charters. We advocates need to know our school board is behind us as we fight for the very survival of our schools. I wrote this article for our local newspaper about what we need in Zimmer’s district, where I live, and have never heard from the school board about it.
http://argonautnews.com/power-to-speak-school-choice-whose-choice/.
There are advocates in other neighborhoods that have come up with similar plans and the board should solicit them. The point is that the board needs its public constituency or eventually no one will care who wins this policy debate.
Karen,
Thanks in part to Ref Rodriguez’ election and manuverings by the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA), LAUSD will soon be co-locating a privately-run charter at Marshall High School in Los Feliz/Silverlake… that’s the school where Zimmer taught for 17 years before his election to the LAUSD Board.
Reading between the lines, that’s a big “f— you” that the CCSA and the privatization industry is delivering to Steve for his move into the anti-privatization camp—his speeches, pronouncement, actions, etc.
Thank you, LAUSD charter man Jose Cole-Guttierez and his master, charter shill Karen Angel of the CCSA.
As I have stated here, and elsewhere, a number of times, Jack, why would Supt. Cortines and the BoE hire Juan Cole-Gutierrez to oversee the LAUSD approved charters, when he recently worked for and with Ref Rodriguez at PUC, the 16 school charter chain that made him a millionaire, and with California Charter School Association which gave the cash to Rodriguez to help him win his seat on the BoE? It certainly seems to any reasonable person that this puts the fox in charge of the hen house, and that Cortines and the BoE are working hand in glove with Broad and the Rheeformers.
Why has the LA Times avoided writing about this misdirection of public oversight???
First, I can’t understand how it is legal to hire these Broad people, who are unqualified, from a “school” that is unaccredited, and secondly, how did Deasy escape jail? Lastly, why is ANYONE listening to ALEC?
For more on Eli Broad and school privatization by placing his academy “graduates”, see the section entitled “The Neoliberal Emperor of Los Angeles” in this essay: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/31748-the-non-profit-industrial-complex-s-role-in-imposing-neoliberalism-on-public-education
We need to keep informed in order to keep fighting those powers that make the well being of their power and wealth a priority above the common well-being and common good. This they are attempting by a breaking up the public school System and Unions which are some of democracies unique leveling fields against the greed of money and The 0ne percent who have it.
No one elected Eli Broad, Bill Gates, the Walton family member, John Arnold, etc. Why should any of them have more say over children’s education than the parents themselves, or more say than the citizens and taxpayers who live in LAUSD?
Eli Broad, in particular, has been active in attempting to sabotage the traditional public schools for two decades. For example, we had Prop 30, which raised taxes to fund education. Eli claimed that he was for it, but then it was revealed that he was funding a group in Arizona—effectively hiding his involvement—that was pouring tens of millions of dollars into the campaign to defeat Prop 30. This revelation helped pass Prop 30.
Had that not passed, there would have been massive layoffs and massive class size increases in LAUSD. This would have led to chaos, low achievement, a decimation of the morale of both students, teachers, and schools in LAUSD… all of which Broad would have pointed to as a justification for converting schools to privately-run charter (privatization)… when he actually caused it… had Prop 30 failed to pass.
On the subject of class size, LAUSD’s elected school board passed a motion 5-2 to lower class size in 2013. At that point, Broad’s puppet superintendent John Deasy brazenly told L.A. School Report that he was going to defy that directive, mockingly calling it “a program to hire every unemployed teacher on the West Coast.” He effectively told his 7 bosses, “In your face!!! I ain’t doing it!!!” All of this was done at the behest of Eli Broad:
http://laschoolreport.com/defiant-deasy-says-hell-continue-to-push-local-spending-plan/
Who’s in charge? The 15 million voters who elected those 7 LAUSD School Board, or some billionaire who controlled the superintendent?
Broad now wants to expand charter schools whose possess a key advantage in having low class size, BUT BROAD HAS CONSISTENTLY BLOCKED LOWER CLASS SIZES FOR THE TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, effectively rigging the game in favor or privately-run charters.
Check out this video of Steve Zimmer’s impassioned speech about lower class size. He produces the webpages of charters with low class size… whose expansion and lower class size are backed by Broad and others… again, the same people blocking low class size for the traditional public schools:
No one put the local public schools up for sale. Charter schools, especially in California and in LAUSD, continue to expand, steal students from the local public schools, appropriate facilities from the local districts, and take our tax dollars designated for the public schools systems. http://www.changethelausd.com/our_country_is_for_sale_our_schools_are_not_but
Stuart, it is outrageous that a small number of billionaires get to takeover public schools in Los Angeles.
Any reason why charter schools like Citizens of the World which is attached to Le Conte MS in East Hollywood, CA. has been able to justify an 80% white student body in a neighborhood that is 90% poor Latinos? Even the 20% of minority kids are mostly made up of movie industry families who are not poor. Can a nice lawyer sue these people. It seems the charter industry can sue public schools at leisure for made up problems all the time, but this is really wrong. Segregation was not the goal of charter schools, it was the fixing of public schools, yet you find schools like these catering to well off families desiring a free private school.