If you have ever wondered why so many elected officials support the privatization of public schools, there is a simple answer: Follow the money.
In state after state, hedge fund managers and other elites have decided that public schools must be privatized, and they have millions to back up their whims and hobbies.
Maurice Cunningham, professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, has researched the dark money flowing into the school privatization movement in Massachusetts. It is an appalling story of a wealthy elite using their money to undermine democracy and to steal public Schools from the community that paid for them.
Millions of dollars have been funneled to Teach for America, Stand for Children, Education Reform Now (the political action arm of Democrats for Education Reform), Families for Excellent Schools, and other corporate reformers whose goal is privatization.
Watch the wealthy try to buy democracy. Watch to see if the public wakes up and fights back.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Excellent article! One of the clearest explanations of an extremely shady and complex trail of money. Thank you, as always, for sharing, Diane.
“One of the clearest explanations”
Perhaps more clear (and modest) than accurate?
Cunningham writes:
“An important limitation on a 501(c)(3) is that it is barred from political activity.”
[…]
“Educators for Excellence and OneGoal are 501(c)(3)s and should not be involved in politics, but their roles in Massachusetts bear watching as well.”
[…]
“I could be wrong, I’m no tax expert”
According to NonProfitVote:
“The most important thing a 501(c)(3) nonprofit should know is that the IRS considers activity on ballot measures a lobbying activity – not electioneering. A 501(c)(3) may work for or against ballot questions up to normal lobbying limits. The IRS makes this distinction because advocacy on ballot measures is an attempt to influence a proposed law or policy – not the election or defeat of a candidate.
[…]
“If your nonprofit has chosen to measure its lobbying under the so-called 501(h) expenditure test, it has clearer guidance and can do more lobbying. Under this expenditure test, you can spend a certain percentage of your annual budget (as much as 20% for small organizations, less for larger groups) on efforts by you or your members to directly influence the outcome of a ballot question or legislative vote.”
http://www.nonprofitvote.org/nonprofits-voting-elections-online/ballot-measures/
You wonder why so many marketing and politically savvy professionals didn’t figure out they should probably mention “improving public schools” in their latest campaign.
That’s the echo chamber effect. They don’t value existing public schools so they assume the public doesn’t either.
I think some politicians in Kansas just found out different. They’re unemployed 🙂
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
The autocratic, dictatorial wealthy are attempting to buy our republic and its democracy from the ground up.
The TFA’s are now seeking political office, including school boards. The funding of those campaigns via foundations will accelerate that takeover, and relatively few citizens are aware of the hazard. Our school board in Cincinnati has one TFAer, and that person has every reason to offer a payback in support of like-minded candidates favoring charters and the newly minted premise that “the operator of a school does not matter as long as they are high quality. The subtext is that public funding should go to any operator–public or private, secular or religious, non-profit or for-profit, single school or franchise, as long as it is of “high quality.” High quality usually means that it produces test scores and graduation rates and customer satisfaction reviews with a summary rating conjured for the greatschools.org redlining and marketing website.
Laura,
The TFA political effort is advanced by its organization called LEE–Leadership for Educational Excellence. It trains TFA-ers to run for political office and raises money for them. Its goal is to protect its contracts and charters in legislatures and school boards, state and local. This is a power-hungry organization determined to take control of education and privatize it.
Hello Diane,
I just have a question. According to Education Reform Now’s website, they are a group of Democrats who support public schools. Is something being left out from their details?
Thanks,
Traci
Traci, when you read the websites of corporate reformers, they are full of happy-talk: it’s all about the kids!
You must judge them by their works, not their words because their words are deceptive.
Their goals are to support charter schools, no matter how much damage is inflicted on the public school. They support evaluating teachers by test scores, even though this approach demoralizes teachers and has failed everywhere. They want to eliminate tenure and seniority.
Boston has a pro-charter mayor and a mayorally appointed School Committee. However, the elected City Council yesterday took a position against upcoming ballot question #2, which would remove the legislative cap on charter schools by permitting the creation of 12 more charters per year without limitation.
The vote was 11 against raising the cap to 2 in favor. The two who voted to lift the cap were Andrea Campbell, whose recent campaign was funded by DFER, and Josh Zakim, son of civil rights activist Lenny Zakim. Turns out Zakim was purchased by DFER for only $6178.73. I was reminded of Jonah Edelman’s betrayal of his mother’s principles.
Another bad seed that rotted for greed
Diane, it may be time to broaden the story to “privatization of curriculum”. Privatizing of schools is the tip of the iceberg.
Previously I commented on the dealings between a San Diego Foundation, two not-for-profit corporations, a for-profit corporation, and Summit Public Schools:
I used the word “syndicate” when describing the 501(c)(3) corporations. This is not hyperbole. We should be concerned about monied interests building schools and then using the teachers and students at those schools to further their own goals for curriculum and instruction and product development. There can be a huge disconnect between the schools’ agenda, or what is pushed by its financial backers, and what the public actually wants. As an example, one need look no further than the Gulen charter network.
Usually when we hear about public oversight, we’re trying to prevent corruption and self-dealing. A different argument applies to curriculum, because it affects what students learn and what kind of values we want to instill. It’s bad enough to have charter schools which are publicly funded but which are de facto private schools. Now the charters are branching out into product development—again with public funds!
Just like the charter schools themselves, the curriculum which they develop is subject to no oversight whatsoever. This should be alarming to anyone on the right or left of the political spectrum who believes that what gets taught must be reviewed—publicly. No matter what we think of the old process of inspection and comment by state and local school boards, or the decisions they reach, at least the process is ostensibly open and democratic.
Here’s the clincher: what the charter networks are developing is no longer just for themselves. It’s now being pushed on real public school districts. How’s that possible? Because it’s being given away for free (at least for now), thanks to the capital of Gates, Broad, Zuckerberg et al. That makes the situation even worse than a lack of oversight. There aren’t even normal market forces at work here. The so-called philanthropy of hedge funds and tech titans is allowing them to shape the educational process itself. Right now, it’s mostly poor urban kids who are subjected to this grand experiment. But the tentacles are reaching into better-off suburban districts near you. The only place they’re not reaching are the private schools where the financial backers send their own kids!
Consider the following three job ads recently placed in edsurge. Should public dollars go to such things? Where are financial benefits flowing? It’s so murky, who can tell?
>> Manager of Customer Experiences – Basecamp Team Summit Public Schools
The Manager of Basecamp Experiences will work with the Senior Director of Recruitment and Enrollment and larger Basecamp Team to design and execute a strategy of experiences – in-person and virtual- for prospective Summit Basecamp applicants and their support network.
Sales · School · Redwood City, CA
>> Director of Marketing Summit Public Schools
The Director of Marketing will work in partnership with the Senior Director of Marketing and Recruitment and Recruitment Team to develop and execute on the marketing strategy and plan needed to build a dedicated and energetic cohort of 1000 partner schools for 2017-2018.
Marketing · School · Redwood City, CA
>> Director of Media Relations Summit Public Schools
Driven by our unwavering commitment to our core values, Summit works every day to ensure our students are receiving a world-class education.
Marketing · School · Redwood City, CA
D.L.
You mentioned Summit Charter Schools.
Well, here a story — a long one — about Summit charter schools (mis)management of a sexual abuse situation at their school
Here’s another charter school scandal. BELOW is a detailed story of a sex scandal at the Summit Tahoma Charter School in San Jose, CA,
First, here’s some TV news coverage of this that I just found:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/02/29/police-investigate-whether-sj-principal-broke-law-in-teacher-sex-case/
At this point when this was broadcast, there still existed the possibility that the principal at Summit Tahoma, Nicholas Kim, might face criminal charges, but as the story BELOW indicates, that never happened, or hasn’t yet happened.
And here is that more detailed story:
Here’s a story — relevant to the issue of deregulation of charters — that I’ve been sitting on for a couple months. (long post, but worth reading, trust me)
This sordid tale was going around at the California delegation at the NEA-RA convention held in D.C. in early July of this year. (and yeah, I freely concede tht there’s a possibility of the story being embellished in the re-telling, as in the “telephone game” effect. However, I was able to find some corroboration of the main facts in media reports available on the internet. SEE BELOW)
It’s about how a principal at a Summit Tahoma Charter School in San Jose:
1) heard a report that one of his teachers was having sex with a female student;
2) he conducts “an internal investigation,” where he, on his own, concluded that nothing happened, and thus, never goes to the authorities;
(This action is a total violation of California law, and a major dereliction of duty, as he is not allowed to make that call NOT to tell the police. Like all adults working in a school setting — administrators, teachers, counselors, nurses, etc. — he is a mandatory reporter. Under penalty of jail and a steep fine for failing to do so, he MUST IMMEDIATELY contact the police. In LAUSD, we have to watch a video and take a test to this effect twice a year.
This situation is similar to when the officials at St. Hope charter school failed to report what Kevin Johnson was doing.)
2) it’s rumored by some (again, I heard this from some people at the NEA-RA in early July) that during the charter principal’s so-called “internal investigation,” he found out the story was true; it’s further alleged that, instead of reporting this to authorities as he was legally required, he pressured both the student and the teacher to deny the affair if and when any police or any other oversight authority questions them as in “Do this, and it will all go away;
“You don’t want ruin Mr. So-and-so’s life and send him to prison. Do you?” … or words to that effect.
(UPSHOT: the best interests and reputation of the Summit Charter Schools are more important than the well-being of the schools students, or following the law, or removing a teacher whom the principal knows full well likes to get it on with underage girls.)
3) even though the principal allegedly tried to bury the story, the word got out anyway, and — THANK JESUS!!!! — a non-involved parent did what the principal had a mandatory legal requirement to do, but did not — she called the police;
4) the police, responding to the parent’s reporting, show up at the school site while the principal is off-campus, and the assistant principal allows the police to question the girl in question in a private room;
5) the questioning starts just as the principal arrives back at the school;
6) the principal discovers what’s going on, and frantically calls the Summit charter chain’s main headquarters, and talks his superior and the charter chain’s lawyer, who tells them the principal has a legal right (???!!!) to barge in to the room, stop the police questioning, and order the police to leave. Incredibly he attempts to do just that, invoking the legal advice he was just given over the phone to the police present;
7) the police tells the principal that their Summit Charter School chain’s lawyers or management to whom he just spoke are in error, and furthermore, the police allegedly tell the principal that if he doesn’t back off, he will be charged with obstruction of justice, and handcuffed; suitably chagrined, he backs the-hell off, and shuts the-hell up;
8) the police questioning continues, but the girl sticks to her story — the story the principal allegedly pressured her to tell — nothing happened with the teacher;
(Whew! That was a close one! … ehhh … Not so fast, Principal Kim!)
9) later, the girl is questioned again by police at her family’s house, and away from the allegedly obstructing principal, she spills the beans;
10) the teacher is arrested and is currently being prosecuted;
(He’s a goa-teed loser, from the mug shot in the media coverage BELOW… “Seriously Dude, does affecting that ‘Robin Hood look’ help you score with the girls whom you teach?” Sweet Jesus! God save us all! )
11) the principal and Summit Charter School put out a very carefully and legally vetted statement, saying that the school’s administration is happy that the evil pedophile teacher has been removed, that’s what they wanted all along if the story was true, and that, contrary to the gossip that been going around, he and the Summit Tahoma Charter school administration cooperated with authorities at all times, and they view the well-being of the victim and of all their students as paramount blah-blah-blah…
———————————————
Quite a yarn? Ayy?
Here’s the actual media coverage I was able to find corroborating the this rumor/story floating around the NEA-RA convention in D.C. this July:
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29568103/san-jose-house-probe-teacher-student-tryst-elicits
The police and other authorities were furious at principal’s outrageous claim that he could simply conduct his own investigation, and then conclude on his own whether or not this matter did warranted contacting the police.
William Grimm, senior attorney for the National Center for Youth Law based in Oakland was quoted in the above article link, and did not mince words:
——————————————
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS:
” ‘The fact that he decided to take some of his time to investigate it automatically means it crosses the threshold of ‘reasonable suspicion,’ he (Grimm) 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.’ ”
——————————————
When the principal of Summit Tahoma Charter, Nicholas Kim, entered the room where police were questioning the alleged victim of a teacher’s molestation, this transpired:
——————————————
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS:
“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.”
——————————————
Here’s some of Summit’s legally vetted statement about this affair:
——————————————
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS: (with my editorial NOTE’s in parentheses)
“In a statement to this newspaper, Kim (and the Summit Charter chain) 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” = chose not to go to the police when he heard a report alleging sexual abuse of a minor, so that, had the parent not gone on his or her own and reported it to the police himself or herself, no one would have ever been the wiser, and that goa-teed Robin-Hood-looking perv would still be on the loose preying on minors at San Jose’s Summit Tahoma Charter School.)
” ‘Once law enforcement became involved and interrogated the student, new evidence came to light that we acted on immediately.’
(NOTE: while that “new evidence did eventually “come to light” in the context of a police interview, it was no thanks to either Principal Kim, or to the Summit Management or to its legal team who gave Principal Kim the ridiculous and unlawful direction to barge in the room where police were questioning a witness, and attempt to stop this information from “coming to light”. Therefore, it’s DESPITE Principal Kim and his Summit Charter superiors, that the truth DID, in fact, “come to light,’ NOT BECAUSE of them.)
“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: Now, this bit gets me really steamed.
I don’t know if the Summit charter folks are plugged in with, or have clout with the police in San Jose, so much so that they able to elicit such a statement and treatment from the local police, but I can say with absolute certainty:
THIS NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTABLE WITH EITHER LAPD, or WITH LAUSD management. (especially in the wake of the Miramonte fiasco a few years back.)
ALL HELL WOULD HAVE RAINED DOWN ON ANY LAUSD PRINCIPAL — or teacher or administrator or other mandated reporter working in an LAUSD school — WHO ACTED THUSLY — both from the police, and from LAUSD administration. He or she would have been canned, banned from education for life, and probably prosecuted and fined, if not imprisoned.
What’s wrong you guys up in San Jose?
Once again, you see the difference between what goes on in a traditional public school setting, and in a deregulated charter setting.)
——————————————
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS:
“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?’ ”
———————————–
Here’s more coverage of this:
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/San-Jose-teacher-arrested-for-allegedly-having-6855398.php
As I reflect on this charter school abomination, I wonder how Campbell Brown — that simultaneous privately-managed-deregulated-charter-lover, and crusader against teacher-child-abusers — and her crack team of reporters at The 74 would handle this story, had it happened …
… at a traditional public school
VS.
… at a charter school … as it most certainly did in this case.
The former would have rated a sizzling expose article on Campbell’s The74 website, proving once again how horrible traditional public schools are … “Unionized teachers are pedophiles!!! And their administrators protect them!!! We need to close ’em all down, and convert them to privately-managed charters, where these horrible things NEVER happen.”
The latter? … Ehhh … not so much… as in … “Oh no. We need to bury this one folks. We can’t make charters look bad.”
On that score, here’s a piece about how reporters at The 74 are allegedly barred from reporting anything negative on charter schools. (NOTE: since last fall, the Success Academy charter chain has faced on public relations disaster after another, and not a word from The 74 about any of them. Campbell Brown, naturally, serves of the Board of Directors of Success Academy charter schools)
———————————————-
DIANE RAVITCH:
“Jennifer Berkshire, aka EduShyster, got a tip about a journalist who applied for a job with The 74. She was told that the 74 news service needed investigative journalists but they would not cover subject of charter school scandals. She shared her story with EduShyster but insisted on anonymity as revealing her name would be “career suicide.” EduShyster repeatedly reached out to a high-level official at The 74. Eventually he responded and insisted that he could not comment based on a report from an anonymous source.
“And of course, the site will be ‘fair and balanced.’ Where have we heard THAT before?”
Here’s the Edushyster story to which Dr. Ravitch refers:
http://edushyster.com/will-the-74-investigate-charter-scandals/
———————————————-
Indeed, this whole Summit Tahoma Charter School story goes to the heart of why it’s such a danger to allow charter school operators to be so free of regulation — as they so often demand in order to … in their words … “be free to innovate” or whatever.
I’ll say it again: regarding this situation at Summit Tahoma Charter School, these same events would NEVER have played out this way in a traditional public school, at least not without serious consequences for the administrators or any adults who acted the way Principal Kim and the Summit Charter School management did.
Here’s how it works in California, in a traditional public school:
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, or 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, if you collude with the perpetrator in covering up or destroying evidence.
In contrast to the way it works in LAUSD, with the adult administrators and teachers at a California charter … they apparently can get away with a lot … even if it puts children at risk of sexual predators.
Reply
Another wrinkle to this story.
The inexperienced principal, Nicholas Kim, was the same age as the alleged pedophile teacher, Zachary Drew, whom he hired to work at Summit, and whom he supervised during Drew’s predations.
Here’s Nicholas Kim’s LinkedIn page:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicholas-kim-14638b90
He graduated college the same year, 2009, as as Zachary Drew, the alleged pedophile teacher, which makes them both around 29-30.
For a visual, here’s the goa-tee-less Zachary Drew:
http://calpoly.classfaqs.com/listings/view/Zachary-Drew#.V8weQIUVP-U
It’s from page identifying Drew as a professor at California Polytechnic (did Cal Poly hire him after being arrested for sex with a minor? What’s up with THAT?!)
In short, both Principal Kim and Drew are contemporaries, or buddies. While the motive of the charter chain’s brass and legal team was in suppressing this information was to protect the school’s and the Summit charter chain’s reputation, Kim’s motives may have been different or more personal. As a contemporary of Drew’s, as well as a fellow graduate of the California university system, Kim may have identified with Drew to the point where he put Drew’s best interest — avoiding jail time for jail bait — against the well-being of the “jail bait” whom Drew was victimizing.
This points out one of the dangers of promoting teachers so young, so untrained, and so inexperienced in a position of high authority at a school site, and not mandating any kind Child Abuse Awareness Training.(CAAT, as it’s abbreviated in LAUSD.)
If Kim had been properly trained on child abuse protocols — as he would have been had he worked in a regulated traditional public school under the oversight of a district… and not in an unregulated charter school, Kim never would have barged into a police interview of an alleged victim, then ridiculously ordered the police to cease questioning and leave the building.
Once more, had he obstructed justice like that in LAUSD, he would have been immediately put on leave, then fired soon after.
In late May of this year, there was a protest of African-American students against the racist school disicpline policies, and the lack of African-American teachers at their privately-managed charter school — Achievement First Amistad (a better-named school there never was… look up Amistad) in Connecticut.
I noticed the same thing about the principal in the Amistad situation. Her name is Claire Polcrack. From the newspaper accounts, Polcrack was bungling the whole situation, and seemed to be way in over her head. Like Nicholas Kim, she was just 28. I called this the Doogie-Howser-ization of school administration (That’s for you Gen-X-ers out there. For the Boomers, you can call it the Bugsy-Malone-ization of school administration).
The charter chains are so desperate to expand as quickly as possible that they put people in charge who have neither the experience, training, nor the innate ability to pull off performing on the job.
Dr. Ravitch covered this here:
In the article, the school’s principal in the picture is Claire Polcrack, who has a Linked-in page:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/claire-polcrack-37340411b
According to this, Principal Polcrack’s career trajectory was the following:
Age 22, TFA teacher for two years, (right out of college in 2009 same year as Kim and Drew … hmmm … coincidence?)
Age 24, TFA aluma and staff teacher (2011)
Age 26, Academic Dean (2013)
Age 28, Principal (June 2015)
Age 29 (today), 1st-year Principal facing a public relations disaster
Wow, that was fast!
Actually, this is nothing. In Los Angeles, I’ve heard of charter school principals as young as 24 (!!!). WTF?!
Chew on that for a while.
Mark my words, if and when Eli Broad commences his program of adding 260 more corporate ed. reform charter schools to the LAUSD landscape, this “Doogie-Howser-ization” of school site management will become a routine and a widespread practice. The charter folks will be forced to do so, as there simply isn’t enough seasoned, trained talent with years of experience to fill those administrative positions.
Nobody will ever be able to tell me that this will be good for the kids being educated in those schools, or for the teachers working under the amateur principals — as is evidenced in the cases of Summit-San Jose’s Nicholas Kim, and Achievement First Amistad’s Claire Polcrack.
Indeed, this is very common in corporate Charter World. That mega-bitch Charlotte Dial, the Success Academy teacher from the infamous “rip-and-redo” video …
… is only in her 20’s and instead of being fired for the above abomination, has been put charge of training Success Academy teachers system-wide. Again, WTF?
Contrast this with LAUSD, where the process of becoming a principal is not so rushed. There’s more of a dues paying process, with greater requirements and demands for who aspiring to achieve the role of principal. A future principal usually teaches at least 10 years, before moving up to the position of Coordinator, a sort of hybrid administrator/teacher position, where he or she remains part of UTLA, A Coordinator has one foot in management’s camp, and one foot in labor’s.
After a few years — at least two — as a coordinator, they may move up to serve as Assistant Principal for a few more years. They attend a district training program while serving as coordinator to prep for the move to A.P. Only the most select move up to be an A.P. After several years as an A.P. — sometimes more than a decade — they finally achieve the role of principal.
In short, one attains a principalship, at the very earliest, in your late 30’s at the absolute earliest. Throughout the entire decade-and-a-half-plus process, one is mentored by principals, seasoned pros with decades of experience. Prospective prinicals are followed and monitored closely to see if they can cut it, or have what it takes. I’ve seen many Assistant Principals — wanna-be principals — who get moved permanently back to a teaching position, after being deemed not up to snuff.
Anyway, by the time one survives this and becomes a principal, they know what they’re doing. (with the rarest exceptions… another story.)
This is not a slight on Ms. Polcrack, who appears to have been a top-notch Math teacher (TFA ain’t all bad😉 ). It’s just that she may be in over her head as principal, at least moreso than she would have in a program run like LAUSD’s.
For a little late Baby Boomer nostalgia, here’s Bugsy Malone (which first put Scott “Chachi-from-HAPPY-DAYS” Baio on the map):
For the Doogie Howser reference, here’s a trailer or commercial for that show which makes my point — the front office of so many charter schools are staffed by far too many Doogie Howser’s running the show: