Andy Smarick, a prominent figure in the conservative think-tank world, has been chosen by his colleagues as president of the Maryland State Board of Education. He was appointed to the board by Republican Governor Larry Hogan. Maryland, once a blue state, has been turning conservative since Hogan’s election.
Smarick is known for his belief that low-performing schools can’t be turned around and that they should be “relinquished” to private operators. In his book “The Urban School System of the Future,” he lays out his vision of a portfolio district, in which public schools disappear, replaced by a dazzling array of charters.
Smarick worked in the George W. Bush administration. He was also briefly deputy superintendent of education in New Jersey. He is a fellow at the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute and a member of the staff at Andrew Rotherham’s Bellwether Education Partners.
In 2010, when he was appointed in New Jersey, Jersey Jazzman summed up his resume, which is solidly in the anti-public school camp.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
MD is sadly becoming North Carolina. Extreme Tea Party feel to it except for our city populations. Hogan is a disaster and the appointment of Smarick shows how closely aligned ALEC types are with Neoliberals. So sad.
I’ve never heard of Mr. Smarick, but I’m going to assume he attended a private high school or boarding school, went to an elite Ivy League school, earned a BA in polic sci, public policy, economics, or some sort of business degree, and never taught. Be right back…just going to Google him…
…just about perfect. From Jersey Jazzman: “He graduated summa cum laude and with honors from the University of Maryland with a degree in Government and Politics. He earned a Master’s degree from the University of Maryland School of Public Policy.
Yeah, he’s a 34-year-old who cut his rather young teeth in Maryland Republican politics. Never ran a school, never taught, no college degree in education.”
Why do edutourists like Mr. Smarick preach the gospel of “choice,” and then advocate for for-profit charter schools that are not locally controlled? What kind of “choice” is that?
Mr. Smarick’s idea of “school choice” is like the “suggestions box” in the corner store that gets emptied in to the trash every night after closing. It’s merely an illusion, a way to avoid actually responding to real questions and concerns from the “customers” you’re pretending to “serve” with your KIPP and National Heritage Academy charter schools.
I coined the adjective “Smarick-ian” a while back, and strangely, it hasn’t yet caught on 😉
Seriously, though, that’s obviously a reference to corporate ed. reform theorist and strategist Andy Smarick, who has let the cat out of the bag as to the privatizers’ 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 LAUSD’s Monica Garcia and Ref Rodriguez — so they will then be placed on the school board — to carry it out this Smarick-ian brilliance that Andy shares with us.
BELOW Smarick details this plan of using a slow, stealth charterization to cause the collapse of public school districts and public education 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, THEN SHOW IT TO THEM
The privatizers don’t want co-existence with the pre-existing public schools that have existed for centuries; 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! You know, the ones accountable and transparent to the citizen-taxpayers, and that are mandated to teach and meet the needs of all students, no matter what the disability or challenging circumstances !
Hello, total privatization of schools where the public loses all input and decision-making power to the private sector, and only some kids are guaranteed a right to an education! Andy Smarick’s (& Reed Hasings’ —- SEE BELOW) wet-dream-come-true!)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
ANDY SMARICK: (continued) “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, useful (and well-paid) privatization puppets like LAUSD Board members Monica Garcia and Ref Rodriguez will execute as they follow the orders of their 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 didn’t otherwise exist, a crisis that will eventually destroy the public schools (re-read Smarick’s plan above). Again, it’s straight out of Naomi Klein’s “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 actual control 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 pumped millions into the campaigns of LAUSD School Board Members Monica Garcia and Ref Rodriguez. Bennett’s first race for the board.)
Again, for a short video summary of Smarick’s plan, watch this speech from arch-privatizer and Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, delivered to the 2014 California Charter Schools Association Convention:
I noticed this announcement in Politico and looked at the resumes of Andy Smarick, a partner at Bellwether Education Partners, Chester Finn as well as others on the board. A majority of these likely to favor charter schools and other alternatives to public schools. http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDe/stateboard/Board_Members.htm
Andy Smarick’s firm, Bellwether, teamed up with the 74 to cover the Republican and Democratic conferences. “Cover” included some hospitality. More from The Baltimore Sun: http://bsun.md/2at7muF
I think it highly probable that many districts in Maryland will soon be made so look so “underperforming” that the Board and other fans of tax-supported private education will press for large-scale firings of teachers and principals who are not “highly effective.“
Since 2012, Maryland teachers have been required to go through the ritual process of learning to write SLOs under a contract between the U.S. Department of Education and WestEd with training services provided by William J. Slotnik, Founder and Executive Director of the Boston-Based Community Training and Assistance Center (CTAC).
Slotnik introduced SLOs in Denver’s 1999 effort to install a pay-for-performance plan. SLOs function just like VAM. Maryland gears up for PARCC tests in 2016-201. I do not know if teachers will still be required to write SLOs–up to three of those dreadful exercises for some teachers.
You can see my questions to WestEd about the use of SLOs in the absence of any research to support their use at the link below. The spokesperson gave a non-response to my questions and comments, then terminated the discussion with the comment: “We at WestEd take no position on the effectiveness of SLOs.” They take the money but don’t care about the fact that SLOs have no evidence to support their use to improve learning. They are a micromanaging technique borrowed from business in the hope of pumping up profits and firing people who failed to hit sales quotas.
https://www.wested.org/news-events/mid-atlantic-comprehensive-center-helps-maryland-reach-unprecedented-agreement/
The logic of the Maryland evaluation system means that teachers and principals working in schools with high rates of poverty and students who are dubbed minorities are more likely to be rated “merely effective” or “ineffective” than teachers in low poverty/low minority schools. You can see that logic in Maryland’s colorful charts and graphs all with presented as if low ratings are CAUSED by incompetence in raising test scoresaided by deeply flawed writing of SLOs. The charts and graphs also indicate there are high rates of teacher turnover and that experienced teachers are “better” in meeting the demands of this deeply flawed evaluation system. http://marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/programs/tpe/docs/Analysis2014-15TeacherPrincipalEffectivenessRatings.pdf
Diane,
Any chance you would change the term “reformer” to something like “edutourist” suggested above by mrobsmsu or even “deformer” or some other term? They sound so much more accurate.
Florence, great idea: the Edutourist movement!
Deforms are everywhere. This is the age of stoooopid “accountability” and “management” by test scores and surveys. Idiotic! Those tests and surveys are not valid.
Everything makes sense when you accept the fact that these “reformers” are actually businessmen who seek to privatize the public schools for profit. They didn’t study education or teach in schools because that is not their area of interest.
They plan on “transforming governance” of public schools.
When this started 20 years ago, does anyone remember the ed reform “movement” telling voters they planned to “transform governance”?
I was in Ohio when all these politicians were running and I could swear they ran on “improving public schools”. Nothing about creating a system of private government contractors to replace private schools. Seems like a big omission.
It reminds me of privatizing Social Security. They never say “privatize”- it’s always “improve”. One would think if they were so utterly confident of the rightness of their cause they’d stop hiding the ball and just tell people the long arc goal is to eradicate the public system.
I feel sorry for kids in existing public schools while ed reformers “wind down” public schools and complete the transition to a privatized system.
My youngest is almost out of the public system. I’m glad, but I’m sorry for the public school kids coming up behind him. They’re stuck with a huge crowd of public employees who have an ideological opposition to the schools they attend. That’s not fair.
“I feel sorry for kids in existing public schools while ed reformers “wind down” public schools and complete the transition to a privatized system.” I hope Marylanders will find their voices and not allow this to happen. Surely they will not allow their locally elected school boards -where their parental concerns can be to addressed to disappear and be replaced in favor of charter schools that do not have elected boards and face accountability and transparency issues.
I watched part of Hillary Clinton’s speech in Columbus yesterday. Maybe a DC Democrat could see their way clear to finding a strong public school in one of these states they’re parachuting into and highlighting a PUBLIC school. There are lots of solid public schools out there and they’re not all in”wealthy suburbs. It really isn’t that difficult to find one.
It would be really nice to hear something positive about even A single public school after 8 years of the Obama Administration bashing the whole “sector”. Ask anyone in these communities- they’ll show her where they are. Also- normal people don’t refer to “sectors” of public schools. Just a head’s up for the campaign professionals.
I read Donald Trump is doing a campaign event in a public school.
Do we have to let people who oppose the continued existence of our schools into the schools we built and paid for? Why would we agree to that? Can’t they conduct these campaigns in their own private schools? I really don’t want to pay for an effort to destroy the local public school. Seems like a bridge too far to ask us to do.
This is a good ed reform piece out of Michigan. The premise (and headline) is charter schools and existing public schools can co-exist.
But read the text carefully. The only way the author will continue to allow public schools to exist is if they become charter schools and outsource all services and operations to private contractors:
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/opinion/contributors/viewpoints/2016/07/24/cooper-charter-schools-can-help-improve-education-us-vs/87344894/
This is “compromise” in the echo chamber. “We’ll only support public schools if they become exactly like charter schools”. This an “offer” you can’t refuse! It’s either privatize or be eradicated – pick one 🙂
He doesn’t envision that transformation overnight, BTW. I’m sure that’s a huge relief to tens of millions of public school students. Ed reform is willing to “wind down” the public schools! They’re generous like that.
Diane, a correction: Andy was appointed to the state board by Gov. Hogan, but was elected Chair by the unanimous vote of his colleagues.
Nelson,
Thanks for the correction. I will fix it.