Mercedes Schneider enjoyed the exchange between Jennifer Berkshire and Peter Cunningham. But she wondered who was funding Cunningham’s “Education Post.”
Read how she investigated the money flow. It is a model of research and creative digging. She knew that money was coming from Walton, Broad, and Bloomberg. But guess who else funds Peter and his $12 million blog?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Wow…so Arne ends up working for Mdm. Powell Jobs….amazing. And once again the co conspirators are Broad, Bloomberg whose daughter Emma got a gig with this new funding, and of course the Waltons, all join the uber rich Jobs. Why so much secrecy surrounding all this? And once again we see how these vultures seek to control the media and twist the facts of their involvement.
Thanks Mercedes for once again using your great research talent to uncover this…and so much for Cunningham.
Thanks, yet again, to Mercedes for unearthing what these ignorant and venal plutocrats obviously wanted to keep hidden.
On the other hand, was there ever any doubt about who was funding this mouthpiece of so-called reform?
Mercedes you are a talented researcher. Accountability is only for public school employees and supporters. Reformers really believe they can hide the truth. Even students know the game is rigged and wealthy investors profit from education reforms. Students create school projects about the attacks on public education from the Reformers. They especially understand how standardized testing is used to privatize public Ed. I am amazed about their depth and breath of understanding on this topic, Mr. Coleman. We can only hope that changes for the better are on the horizon as more corruption is exposed.
When I heard Cunningham’s comment about paid bloggers on both sides of the issue, it made me laugh. I would love to see a dollar for dollar comparison. While some pro-public school bloggers may receive legitimate income from various publications, most of these people are knowledgeable and passionate about democratic public schools, and some people blog on a wing, a hope and a prayer. I guarantee the mouthpieces fronting billionaires and corporate “reform” command much higher compensation. It’s a David and Goliath comparison.
A blogger for Education Post, Elsa Dure, is an Aspen Institute Pahara “NextGen Leader”.
She’s CEO of Rhode Island Mayoral Academies, an “organization to support the growth of charter schools”. RIMA’s site announced a school collaboration with Summit Charter Schools of California.
Guess who’s providing funding for the collaboration? Nah, don’t guess, the question’s too easy….Gates.
You may recall from prior comments, David Koch is on the Aspen Institute Board. The founder of the Pahara Aspen Institute was co-founder of New Schools Venture Fund, founding team member of TFA, co-founder of Bellwether and, a Rocketship board member.
Pahara received almost $2 million form Gates. New Schools Venture Fund received $22 million from Gates.
John King is a Fellow of the Aspen Institute New Schools Entrepreneurial Leaders for Public Education.
The Summit charters in California — mentioned above —- recently endured a black eye regarding its administrators’ failure to report teacher molestation at one of the Summit charter schools. They then compounded this failure by then engaging in interference with a police investigation that later was undertaken. The fact that this investigation DID begin at all was no thanks to the Summit administrators, who again, buried the information when it came to them.
It was a parent who did what the Summit administrators failed to do — the parent went to the police — that led the police investigation, the same investigation that the Summit administration tried to stop.
It’s quite a story.
I wonder how Campbell Brown — that simultaneous charter lover and crusader against teacher sexual predators — would handle this story.
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/San-Jose-teacher-arrested-for-allegedly-having-6855398.php
This goes to the heart of why it’s a danger that charter schools to be so free of regulation. The story that follows — regarding a Summit charter school in San Jose, California — would never have happened in a traditional public school, or if it did, there would be serious consequences for the administrators who acted this way.
Here’s how it works in California.
Both teachers and administrators in traditional public schools are “mandated reporters.” They have to attend “mandated reporter” training twice every school year (I’ve taken it over 20 times), in which it is made loud and clear that once you have knowledge or suspicion that abuse has taken place, a 36-hour clock starts from that very moment. If you don’t report it immediately, and then send a written report within 36 hours at the latest,
1) the teacher or administrator will be fired
2) the teacher or administrator will lose his/her credentials, and be banned from education for life.
and possibly …
3) be prosecuted as an accessory, especially if you collude with the perpetrator in covering up or destroying evidence.
With the adults at a California charter … not so much.
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/San-Jose-teacher-arrested-for-allegedly-having-6855398.php
This is interesting because of what happened at a prominent charter school chain— Summit, which has schools in California and other states.
Apparently, a male teacher was having a sexual affair with a student, but the school OPTED NOT TO INFORM THE AUTHORITIES (???!!!) They believed that, as employees of a private actor or entity subcontracted by the state, their administrators and teachers are not bound by the same regulations (ABOVE) that bind administrators and teachers at traditional public schools.
In short… if a charter teacher or administrator is suspected of having sex with with a student, and it’s later discovered by the administration … in this case, charter school leaders… those charter school leaders have discretion as to whether or not to report the incident to law enforcement.
If they choose to report it, fine.
If they choose to conclude that it’s just a rumor, and then not report it, well, that’s fine, too.
And, should they opt for the latter, there’s no consequence or punishment—- criminal, legal, credentialing, etc.
(This is what happened in the case of Sacrament Mayor Kevin Johnson, Michelle Rhee’s husband, and a charter school promoter.)
Again, in a traditional public school setting, the Wrath of Hell would descend upon any administrator or teacher who opted for the latter, when and if actual molestation was uncovered, and the school leaders failed to inform the police.
Instead, the officials of the Summit Charter School in San Jose did their own “internal investigation.” They spoke to the teacher who — SURPRISE! SURPRISE! — denied the whole thing, then unilaterally chose not to inform authorities. They then moved on as if nothing had happened.
————————-
“When detectives in the San Jose Police Department launched their investigation, they discovered that the school had already concluded an internal investigation and identified the suspect.
“After police secured a warrant for his arrest, Drew turned himself in at the Santa Clara County Main Jail on Wednesday, police said.
“In a statement, the school said it ‘regretfully’ confirmed Drew’s arrest and said it was ‘working closely with law enforcement.’
“ ‘While I can’t comment on the teacher’s employment, I can confirm we have a short-term substitute in place,’ said Nicholas Kim, theexecutive director of the school.
————————-
Oh well, that’s nice that you got a sub, BUT WERE YOU EVER PLANNING ON TELLING LAW ENFORCEMENT?
Had this parent not reported this rumor to the police, this perpetrator gotten off scot-free… just so your school would avoid any bad publicity.
The only reason this eventually got to the police was that, weeks later, a parent got wind of a rumor that this happened, and went the police himself or herself.
The police contacted the charter administration, and they admitted that “Yeah, we heard all about it, but we looked into it, concluded that it was nothing … just a rumor … so we left it alone.” . The Summit charter folks claimed that they conducted their own internal investigation, and “handled it internally” — i.e. never told the police.
However, now that it was proven to be true, and not just a rumor, they did concede that “regretfully” they had earlier opted not to inform law enforcement.
Dora Taylor in Seattle minces no words about this (including the school’s heavy reliance on “blended or personalized learning”):
https://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/no-rules-charter-schools-summit-public-charter-school-teacher-arrested-for-allegedly-having-sex-with-a-student/
The police hit the nail on the head regarding the principal’s defense of not reporting to law enforcement:
“The fact that he decided to take some of his time to investigate it automatically means it crosses the threshold of ‘reasonable suspicion,’ ” (Police) said. “And what expertise does the principal have in identifying potential teacher-student sexual relationships? He (the principal himself) posed a danger to the school by doing this (investigating and making conclusions based on this investigation) and not having the qualifications necessary (to undertake such an investigation.”
Not only that, but when police showed up, the same “oh-it’s-just-a-rumor” principal, Summit’s Nicholas Kim, tried to interfere with the questioning of a student, with Kim claiming that the Summit charter school’s legal department told Kim that the he had the right to order the police to stop all questioning and leave campus.
When the principal of Summit Charter entered the room where police were investigating the alleged victim of a teacher’s molestation, this transpired:
———————————-
“And in the early stages of the police investigation at Summit Tahoma Public School, the same principal, Nicholas Kim, burst into a room to demand police stop interviewing the alleged victim, only to be rebuffed by a sex-crimes detective. This came a short time after the detective reminded the principal about his duty to report any potential child abuse allegation; the principal asserted he was following the direction of his management and legal team.
“The sequence is detailed in a police report accompanying the charges against Drew and has elicited a debate about whether the school should have contacted police.
” ‘I don’t know how many times teachers and administrators have to be told: Do not investigate. Report, and let the people trained to perform sexual-assault investigations do the investigations,’ said William Grimm, senior attorney for the National Center for Youth Law based in Oakland.
“In a statement to this newspaper, Kim wrote that ‘at no point was there any intent by the school to conceal or hide any information. We acted in good faith. Under the circumstances and evidence available to us, we acted immediately and with speed to find all information. When we received information, we followed up according to legal requirement.’
(NOTE:
“followed up according to legal requirement”
MEANS
chose not to report anything to the police, so that, had the parent not gone on his or her and reported the rumor, it no one would have ever been the wiser.)
” ‘Once law enforcement became involved and interrogated the student, new evidence came to light that we acted on immediately.”
(NOTE: 2 points need to be made
POINT 1: the reason that “law enforcement became involved” was no thanks the the Summit administrators. It was due to a parent who heard the rumor went to the police… unlike Principal Kim, who, after hearing the same rumor, buried the information. But for this parent, no “new evidence would have come to light”, and the teacher would have gotten away scot free.
POINT 2: while that “new evidence” was in the process of “coming to light” in the context of a police interview, that same principal barged in the room and tried to stop it from “coming to light”, and end the police interview.
Oddly, the D.A.’s office sided with Kim, in that he did nothing wrong, but the police contradicted the D.A.’s take on the matter)
—————————————–
“The District Attorney’s Office said Friday that Kim’s decision not to notify police or Child Protective Services was not a violation of the mandated reporter law because the rumor alone did not create a level of ‘reasonable suspicion’ abuse had occurred, as the state penal code requires.
(NOTE: I don’t know if the Summit charter folks are plugged in with, or have clout with the District Attorney’s office in San jose, but I can say with certainty, THIS NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE WITH EITHER LAPD, or WITH LAUSD. ALL HELL WOULD HAVE RAINED DOWN ON AN LAUSD PRINCIPAL WHO ACTED THUSLY — both from the police, and from LAUSD administration. He would have been canned, banned from education for life, and probably prosecuted and fined, if not imprisoned)
Once again, you see the difference between what goes on in a traditional public school setting, and in a de-regulated charter setting.)
———————————
“The code reads, in part: “‘Reasonable suspicion’ does not require certainty that child abuse or neglect has occurred nor does it require a specific medical indication of child abuse or neglect; any ‘reasonable suspicion’ is sufficient.”
“Where we see administrators making mistakes is when they have a victim telling them that some abuse occurred and then the administrator does their own investigation to see if it’s accurate, to see if it’s true,” Assistant District Attorney Terry Harman said. “If you have a situation where what you’re hearing is a rumor and you’re not hearing from someone who saw something or someone who experienced something, then can you have a reasonable suspicion from what appears to be a rumor?”
Grimm argues such a premise is contradicted by the principal’s response to the claim.
“The fact that he decided to take some of his time to investigate it automatically means it crosses the threshold of reasonable suspicion,” he said. “And what expertise does the principal have in identifying potential teacher-student sexual relationships? He (the principal himself) posed a danger to the school by doing this and not having the qualifications necessary.”
The case originated Feb. 17 when a girl told Kim a rumor about a female student in a romantic relationship with Drew, an English teacher. According to the police report, Kim said he interviewed several girls at Summit Tahoma, which was founded in 2011 and shares a campus with Oak Grove High School on Blossom Hill Road, but operates independently. The alleged victim reportedly told Kim she made up the rumor herself.
On Feb. 22, working off a tip from a school parent, three San Jose police detectives went to the school and asked to speak with several students, including the alleged victim. Detectives were met by Kim, who said he already investigated the claim. Detective Nicholas Jourdenais told Kim his job as principal “was to report incidents of sexual misconduct as soon as he becomes aware of the incident.”
During the detectives’ initial interview, Kim walked into the room and reportedly told Jourdenais “that her parents had not been notified prior to the interview and that his (the charter school’s) legal team requested the interview be stopped.” Jourdenais stepped out with Kim and told the principal “about the lawfulness” of his interview. He then resumed his questioning of the girl.
The girl initially denied being romantically involved with Drew, but when detectives interviewed her a second time, away from the school, she detailed a sexual relationship that began when she was 17 and lasted about seven months. The girl told police Drew ended their relationship in December, and the two of them would often talk about how much trouble he would be in if they were ever caught.
Drew told police he said he was “shocked” when Kim told him about the rumor and said his text messages with the student were “always school related.” Detectives are conducting a forensic analysis of the girl and the teacher’s cellphones.
Sgt. Brian Spears, whose child-exploitation unit investigated the case, said the sequence of events should serve as a reminder about the importance of involving police early on. He cited his detectives’ decision to interview the alleged victim off campus as one example of the expertise they offer.
“When in doubt, we are a resource,” Spears said. “Utilize that resource.”
When I think of Peter Cunningham, the first thing that comes to mind is the comic spectacle of his choosing to review Ravitch’s book REIGN OF ERROR… without doing everyone the courtesy of reading it first:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-cunningham/ravitch-redux_b_3768887.html
I’m picturing Peter at his desk dressed as Johnny Carson’s “Carnac”—in a black turtleneck, with a big, sparkling, puffed-out faux-turban on his head—holding REIGN OF ERROR to his forehead with one hand, and typing the Huffpost review with the other hand… (while talking in Carson’s nasal-ly Carnac voice.)
CUNNINGHAM (from HUFFPOST) : “I understand that Dr. Ravitch is about to publish another book attacking education reform. She will go after my good friend Arne Duncan. She will attack… she will attack… she will attack… ”
“What she will not write about is… she will write about is … she will… ”
What is this guy? Nostradamus?
Hey, Peter. Here’s an idea you could look into…
1) first read the book (after you buy the book or check it out your library, of course)…
THEN
2) write your review.
Seriously, my students all do this, and it works wonders.
Sure, based on her recent writings, one can guess much of what Ravitch will write in a book about ed. issues, but still… what was the point of reviewing it without reading it? Doing it the right way allows one to cite quotations, read everything in context, discover and correct misunderstandings… and on and on…
“Backpacks for Cash” Duncan, Mayor and Governor 1%, oligarch venture philanthropists and their minions….. friends or cabal?
If the plutocratic opportunity to make money was taken out of the equation, would they be tied together ?
John King, a Fellow of the Aspen Institute’s “New Schools Entrepreneurial Leaders for Public Education”. David Koch, Aspen Institute Board member – Aspen, just a group of friends or a plot against democracy?
Is “Peter Cunningham” actually “Tim”?
“Tim,” a regular pro-corporate reform blogger that posts here, sure says a lot of same stuff that Peter Cunningham says.
Here’s an exchange between Tim and myself.
https://dianeravitch.net/2015/10/17/campbell-brown-calls-for-elimination-of-all-public-schools/
———————-
JACK: “Okay, then why aren’t Campbell (Brown) and (her husband) Dan barging into the administrators at (their kids elite private school) Heschel and demanding that they implement Common Core curriculum, test prep, and testing immediately, and threatening to remove their children forthwith, or perhaps starting a petition drive among the other Heschel parents to force the school leaders to implement curriculum, test prep, and testing?
PETER CUNNINGHAM: “The next objection, that the results aren’t used to fire teachers, is completely irrelevant. With the exception of the Lab School, none of these schools are unionized, and no teacher has tenure. Schools don’t need a test to get rid of their bad apples, they can let them go whenever it is apparent that things aren’t working out.”
“The parents who write the $30,000-$50,000 tuition checks view testing as an important ‘trust but verify’ reality check. Taxpayers, families, and students deserve an independent reality check as well.”
—————————————
Here’s an exchange from an audience member during the Jennifer Berkshire tete-a-tete a the N.P.E.:
( 57:57 – )
( 57:57 – )
——————————————–
BURKS DOWNS, PARENT: “Standards, testing, evaluation based on tests. The full reform package. If it’s such a good idea, why isn’t it in place in private schools where most reformers send their kids?”
PETER CUNNINGHAM: “The quick answer is because that in private schools, you have organic accountability. Parents pay the money, and if they don’t like it, they leave.”
BURKS DOWNS, PARENT: “Well, we (parents) are taxpayers, and we’re paying money, too. We have the Constitutional provisions for an adequate education. So if (the whole corporate reform package) helps to make (a child’s education) more adequate, or more sound and basic, or more whatever the Constitutional provision is, don’t you think they’d be doing that in private schools, too? If it was such a good idea, wouldn’t (private school leaders) just on their own be doing it, if it was such a good idea?”
PETER CUNNINGHAM: “I think some of them do. Private schools don’t face the same issues. Those parents are free to use their tuition, and go wherever they want.”
————-
“those same issues” to which Peter refers are presumably the union contract with job protections that “Tim” uses to justify private schools being given an excuse not to employ “the whole corporate reform” package.
Now this could be that in the case of Peter and “Tim,” they just share the same ideas. “Great ed reform minds think alike … ” and all that.
At the same time, however, I’m and ed policy junkie who reads everything I can find, and these are the only two times I’ve ever seen this particular corporate education reform argument in defense of ed reformers’ hypocrisy — i.e. their use of private schools which employ none of the “corporate reform package” that they celebrate as the key to a great education, while those same these same ed reformers are forcing the “corporate reform package” down the throats of tens of millions of “other people’s kids” and those kids’ families, no matter how unwilling the parents are.
“Private schools have ORGANIC ACCOUNTABILITY.” Now, I’m LOL.
Is that the explanation for why the Justice Dept. failed to bring any charges against the bankers?
Linda, I thought “organic accountability” was one of Cunningham’s stronger points. What I wish his questioner had responded is that there’s a lot of organic accountability in public schools too, beginning with the students who will rebel if the teaching stinks, the parents who can make a stink, the principal who can give you a bad evaluation, and the enormous pressure, found in most social situations, to develop a good reputation. The risk of getting fired is not the only way to wield organic accountability; the fear of disrepute may even be stronger.
Ponderosa,
I understand what you are saying. However, phrases like compost “accountability” and, the false measures, applied in an attempt to control, waste time and morale.
Most people, particularly those working with children, in difficult situations, do the best they can, given the circumstances. Notions and words of “assessment”, are nothing more than the profit -driven rhetoric of Silicon Valley men, like Gates, and schemers.
“Mercedes Schneider enjoyed the exchange between Jennifer Berkshire and Peter Cunningham.”
I can’t imagine what was enjoyable in the exchange.
Mercedes’ research is excellent, btw.