Mercedes Schneider reports here on the unprecedented spending on the Massachusetts ballot question on expanding privately managed schools. She includes the spending by both sides: those who want more charters and those who do not.
Most of the funding against charters comes from teachers’ unions and people who live in Massachusetts.
Most of the funding for charters comes from financiers and billionaires who do NOT live in Massachusetts.
Mercedes links to this article:
Boston radio station WGBH reviewed spending records on the charter referendum and found that charter supporters, based largely in New York City in the financial industry, have thus far spent more than $12 million to promote passage of Question 2. Question 2 would remove the cap on charter schools.
The opposition consists of billionaires like Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, who gave almost $300,000, and the Waltons of Arkansas, who gave $1.8 million.
The chairman of the Massachusetts State Biard of Education gave $100,000 to the pro-charter, pro-privatization camp. Lifting the cap would strip resources from the state’s excellent public schools. Opponents have started a change.org petition calling on the Governor (a privatization advocate) to oust the chairman of the state board because of the blatant conflict of interest.
Expect more money from Wall Street before November 8. This is a must-win for the privatizers.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is why people who talk about union donations generating undue influence is false. Here, in Michigan, we had a recall of a state legislator about 6 years ago. The MEA was outspent by the Devos family 3-1 on the recall election. One family outspent thousands of middle class people.
Most of America has no idea how much the wealthy can tilt favorable election conditions to their preferred candidates.
LikeLike
Obama Administration going forward with huge federal grant to expand charter schools in Ohio:
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/09/ohios_71_million_charter_schoo.html
Sadly, the same people who approved the federal grant in the first place will be “overseeing” the new schools.
I wonder how many public schools are slated for closure and which ones? Will people be told ahead of time or will they just find out when the state quietly stops supporting their school?
LikeLike
Why is the Obama administration putting more money into charters in one of the most scandal-ridden states, where there is no state oversight or accountability?
LikeLike
These decisions–where to give a discretionary grant–are by nature political. Ohio is a red state. I don’t get it.
LikeLike
“Why is the Obama administration putting more money into charters in one of the most scandal-ridden states, where there is no state oversight or accountability?”
It’s a swing state.
LikeLike
Exactly! I think Obama is hell-bent on doing as much to destroy public schools by funneling no-string attached cash to All Things Charter. The man deserves nothing but contempt for his role in decimating public education. I don’t anticipate much improvement under a Clinton administration. Her silence on K-12 speak volumes. And, yes, I know that under a Trump administration (highly unlikely to happen), it will be worse.
Either way, it’s going to be a rough four years.
LikeLike
Take heed Massachusetts. “Quality” has nothing to do with this.
Ohio has the worst charter schools in the country and the Obama and Kasich Administrations expand them every single year.
It’s ideology.
LikeLike
“It’s ideology.”
Umm, No! It’s not ideology, it’s idiology*!
*Idiology (n.) Ideology based on errors, falsehoods and invalidities. The ideology of idiots.
LikeLike
Massachusetts is the “golden egg” for privatization.
The fact that billionaire and millionaire money continues to pour in from Bloomberg in New York, and the heirs and heiresses of Walmart in Arkansas should signal red lights for all citizens of the United States…
…it was never about providing a superb education for our children, or the secret sauce of “college and career ready”…
It is, and has always been about 1) the theft of American tax dollars meant for public schools being diverted into corporate bank accounts, 2) the dumbing down of our children to create passive compliance, 3) the death of our public schools, 4) the first of many calculated attacks against the public school teachers of the United States, by bribing union officials to sell out union members, and 5) the goal of destroying the teachers union as a domino effect that would eventually destroy other unions.
Massachusetts is the bullseye here for privatization…it has traditionally held the highest level of public education in our nation…if Massachusetts falls, other states would surely be likely to follow.
The Bloombergs and Waltons are criminals who sit behind their checkbooks…buying governors, buying state education commissioners, buying school boards…buying advertisement time, buying elections…
“Pay to the order…of the destruction of public education…in America”.
With the compliments of the plutocracy.
They must be stopped in Massachusetts…the state traditionally with the strongest public education system…
Their goal is a form of asymmetric warfare against the public…
Attacks against public education in cities with high poverty levels, such as Detroit, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Newark, and Los Angeles…to high achieving states such as Massachusetts, Indiana, and New York…a coordinated attack against various sectors of our society.
Limitless dollars to throw against our children, and the public services they depend on…
Destroy the privatization movement through:
Education of our citizens and
The exercising of the Right to Vote by all of our citizens.
The “Don’t Steal Possible” slogan is sinister and deceptive impassioned plea to the public…to continue the privatization movement…
It should really be called what it actually is…
“All Theft Possible”
LikeLike
Steve B,
Agree. If they can buy Mass, they can buy any place. That’s why Question 2 must lose
LikeLike
And that’s why it is shocking that Elizabeth Warren is supporting this. Or at least, remains mum, which is as good as supporting it.
LikeLike
So why are the Waltons from 2,000 miles away in Arkansas backing this/
How can the Waltons claim to care about the education of poor kids, when this is what they’re paying those same kids’ parents?
https://www.glassdoor.com/Hourly-Pay/Walmart-Hourly-Pay-E715.htm
Sales Associate
1,311 salaries
$9.36
hourly
$7
$15
Walmart Cashier
900 salaries
$9.20
hourly
$7
$17
Guest Service Team Member – Cashier
715 salaries
$9.10
hourly
$7
$13
Wal Mart Cashier
566 salaries
$9.16
hourly
No, this support of Question 2 is so that, eventually, they’ll replace traditional public schools with schools of their own, where they’ll be paying teachers the same amount — or as close to that amount as they possibly can without parents rioting. And the Walmart family bosses will pocket the rest.
LikeLike
As the folks in Nashville found out
recently, this sort of outrage is
also an opportunity for the folks fighting
Question 2.
As in ju-jitsu, you use your opponent’s
strength AGAINST HIM or HER.
Use the fact that their getting big money
from out-of-state against them.
During Steve Zimmer’s 2013 campaign, Zimmer used
the fact that all this out-of-state money was coming
in — $1 million from Bloomberg alone — against
STEVE ZIMMER AND IN SUPPORT OF his corporate
ed. reform puppet/opponent, Kate Anderson::
“To whom do your schools belong,
out-of-state billionaires who don’t even live here
whose kids and/or grandkids don’t attend schools here?
“Or you, the citizens and taxpayers and parents
of children who attend these schools?”
This tactic was working so well, and
was getting such traction that when
I went door-knocking, I barely said a word before
the homeowner replied,
“Whoever’s the candidate who’s running against
the one that Bloomberg gave all that
money to, THAT’S who I’m voting for.”
It even got to the point were two corporate reform
former School Board members, Yolie Flores and
Marlene Canter, put out an op-ed trying to reverse
this highly successful effort.
(and as they say in court, or in politics…
“When you’re defending, your losing.
When you’re explaining, your losing.”)
Here’s that attempt to counter Steve’s tactic:
http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20130301/marlene-canter-and-yolie-flores-in-lausd-board-race-enough-with-insiders-vs-outsiders
Teacher/activist Martha Infante fired back at this in the
COMMENTS section (deleted shortly afterwords, btw):
INFANTE: “The teachers union is not the Borg. We are tens
of thousands of men and women who have chosen
to dedicate our lives to serving our youth.
“We are your husbands, wives, brothers and sisters. We
are your children, cousins, nephews an nieces. We are
people.
“What Flores and Canter choose to overlook is that the
will of Los Angeles residents should not be subverted by
any ONE wealthy individual from across the country. Unlike
teachers, Mike Bloomberg does not live in our city, pay
our taxes. or work in our classrooms.
“Teachers make meager contributions to school board
candidates they feel will protect the interests of students
and teachers alike. After all, we share a classroom for
8 hours a day. We are in it together.
“”I cannot afford to make a million dollar contribution. But
I can participate in my union, join the House of
Representatives, and demonstrate the best that
democracy has to offer: debating ideas, electing
sound leaders, and participating in elections by
phone banking and precinct walking when necessary.
“Isn’t this how a democracy should function? One person,
one vote?
“It is shocking then, to see two former school board
members flaunt their contempt of democracy by
aligning themselves to billionaires who are intent
on dismantling public education and privatizing it.
“What a conflict of interest.
“Ms. Flores herself pushed hard to destabilize
schools with the Public School Choice plan and
was reviled in the very community she grew up
in, Huntington Park, when she ceded part of the
local high school to charter companies.
“Then, she was handsomely rewarded with a
six-figure job with the Gates foundation upon
her separation from the school board. There should
certainly be a law barring public servants from
passing laws that benefit private companies and
then being hired by those very companies.
“I for one, and voting for Robert D. Skeels for the
District 2 school board seat because he is an
education activist that could never be bought by
corporations.
“Martha Infante,
National Board Certified Teacher,
Los Angeles 2009 CCSS Teacher of the Year”
Sadly, Robert came with on 4 percentage
poings of forcing Monica Garcia into a
run-off.
If you’ll indulge me, here’s some back-and-forth
between myself and a pair of astroturf operatives
Rene & Amy, in the Patch COMMENTS
section that’s relevant:
I went to work at the official Zimmer campaign
during the last two weeks, and his campaign
manager said Anderson was strong in the areas
covered by these outlets of the “PATCH” chain
(where I / “Jack Covey” voiced my / his opinions):
Venice, Mar Vista, Marina Del Rey, Pacific
Palisades, etc.
Anderson was running ads on MS-freakin’-NBC
non-stop, and we had to reach the voters in
these communities any way we could—including
aggressive door-to-door canvassing and
persuasion in this “enemy territory”.
Now, I don’t want to overstate my contribution
on-line (or elsewhere)… just trying to show
how every little bit helps, and blogging
like this is 100% free.
Here’s some of that Rene wrote on the
Venice PATCH:
RENE RODMAN:
“Change is beginning to take hold within LAUSD, in
large part due to the efforts of Superintendent Deasy
and the board members who share his vision. The
tough work has begun with the teacher evaluation
system. LAUSD parents have more school choice
than ever before. And the Superintendent is
transitioning the district from a one-size-fits-all
command-and-control model, to one where more
decisions are made at the local level to meet the
individual needs of schools and their communities.
“All of this will be in jeopardy if reform-minded
candidates are not elected to at least two of the
three open board seats in this election. If parents
want these efforts to continue, we must vote for
candidates who will sustain them. We have a
responsibility to our children and our city to get
out and vote.
“If just 15 to 20 percent of LAUSD parents and
guardians make our desire for change known at
the polls, change is certain to occur.
“As the single largest stakeholder group in LAUSD,
we parents share heavily in the responsibility for
the current state of the system. By voting for
change and candidates like Kate Anderson, we
also have the numbers and power to do something
about it….
“In addition to being an LAUSD parent herself and
having excellent qualifications for a seat on the board,
Kate Anderson supports the changes needed at
LAUSD and the leader who embodies them. This
does not mean that she will blindly support
Superintendent Deasy, but it does mean that the
two are on the same page – something that is
critical for LAUSD (and any organization) to move
forward.”
and also…
AMY BAKER:
“Steve Zimmer is NOT the best choice for our students.
Kate Anderson is. I have watched Mr. Zimmer stall and
block reform efforts by our superintendent and other
school board members ALL YEAR LONG and I am tired
of having someone who supports the status quo represent
me.
“I want a school board rep who is not afraid to challenge
the status quo to get policies in place that are in the best
interests of students. I want a school board rep who puts
STUDENTS first.
“That person is Kate Anderson. She is smart, thoughtful,
down-to-earth and a parent who understands what
needs to be done to fix LA’s schools for all of LA’s children.
“She will support Dr. Deasy and not block his efforts to put
the needs of students first when making the changes
necessary in LAUSD”
Here’s where I went to work refuting them, and
in the process, reach out to voters in Anderson’s
strongholds of Venice, Mar Vista, Pacific
Palisades, Marina Del Rey, etc.
At this point in the campaign, unless we (again,
not just me, but a lot of folks) made a dent in
Anderson’s lead in these communities, Steve
would have surely lost.
Heeeeeeeere’s “Jack Covey!!!!
Jack’s 1st COMMENT:
“Rene,
” ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’
“To whom do our public schools belong, anyway?
The parents and citizen/taxpayers via a
democratically-elected school board… ?
“… or out-of-state billionaires 3,000 miles away
whose for-profit businesses—charter school
companies, digital & online learning—will benefit
from Mrs. Anderson’s election, and the ultimate
goal of privatizing most or all of our schools?
“Yeah, I know. That’s a loaded question, but
somebody’s got to say it. Mrs. Anderson is
corporate puppet fronting for the moneyed
interests whose goal is to privatize the public
school system—the billionaires whose
contribution is now $ 2.8 million and
counting:
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/billionaires-pouring-millions-lausd-school
“First of all, Mrs. Anderson was not the first choice of
the privatizers. Before they asked her, nine others
turned them down. Her political ambitions and
self-interest coincided with the interests of the
privatizers, and now we have her candidacy.
“There have been a deluge of lie-filled TV ads in
which Steve Zimmer is being blamed for the
actions of other school board members Monica
Garcia, Yolie Flores, and others—namely the
laying off of teachers and the elimination of arts
programs. Blaming Steve for this is like blaming
Watergate on Obama, as he was teaching
at Marshall High when all this went down.
“They are literally telling the exact opposite of
the truth. Kate’s people know these are bald-faced
lies, but also know it resonates with the public… and
all’s fair in electoral politics.
“Steve actually fought to keep teacher jobs and
arts programs. It’s the John Kerry Swift-Boating
campaign all over again. Unlike Mrs. Anderson,
Steve has no money to put up TV ads to set the
record straight, but someone did this amateur
YouTube video of Steve responding:
Jack’s 2nd COMMENT:
“In fact, Mrs. Anderson’s whole
just-a-plucky-mom-who-cares-about-schools act is
ultimately just a front for the eventually abolishing the
very office and democratic body—the LAUSD School
Board—for which she is running (not right away,
but eventually).
“Once the system has been privatized, the parents
and citizen-taxpayers will no longer have any
democratic control of schools via a school board
responsive to the public via democratic elections.
The moneyed interests backing Mrs. Anderson will
have ‘boards’ the meet in private, and made up of
non-educators and profiteers.
“The public will then have zero input or
decision-making power.
“It’s all in the school privatizers’ playbook:
” ‘Abolish all school boards.’
“Everyone backing her… from Broad to Rhee
to Gates to Bloomberg to the Koch Brothers to
the Walton family… is on record as this being
their ultimate goal. That’s what they’ve done in
other cities. Since they can’t do that her, putting
in corporate puppets is the next best thing.)
“That is why both she and the folks who back
her must be stopped.
“VOTE FOR STEVE ZIMMER on Tuesday, March 5th!!!!”
Jack’s 3rd COMMENT:
“I’ve got so much to say, Rene.
“Do you really think that those out-of-state
billionaires who are kicking in $3 million dollars
to elect someone to a political post that pays
$46,000 / year are doing it out of the goodness
of their hearts, and because they care so much
about the education of middle and lower-income
children?
“Does that pass ‘the smell test’?
“No, they’re out to destroy the precious institution
of public education in order to profit from their
takeover of it. Everything that comes out of Ms.
Anderson’s mouth is straight from the school
privatizers’ playbook. She’s an Irish Michelle Rhee.”
Jack’s 4th COMMENT:
“At one point during both the United Way and KPCC
debates, Mrs. Anderson waxes nostalgically about
the good ol’ days when California had an education
system envied the country over, and she’ll bring that
back.
“Well, EVERYTHING THAT SHE PROPOSES TO
DO THAT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE
WAY SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL SYSTEMS WERE
OPERATED BACK THEN.
“Kate wants to shred all union protections.
“Well, back then, California teachers had the strongest
job protections in the country, and teachers had
due process and seniority, and seniority-based
pay.
“She wants to raise class size.
“Well, back then, we had small class sizes.
“She wants to evaluate teachers based on
the junk science of test-based evaluation of
teachers…
“WRONG AGAIN, KATIE! We didn’t have
that back in the good ol’ days either.
“Merit pay, and test-based evaluation? Dr. Diane
Ravitch, the former Asst. Sec. or Ed under the
first Bush. said it best about this: merit pay
never works, but it never dies. It keeps coming
back. It’s the ultimate “zombie policy.”
“She wants to give away some/most of the
LAUSD schools to private (charter) companies
to manage.
“Well, back then, how many ‘public’ schools
were privately-run charters?
“ANSWER: NONE!
“What we did have back then was a fully-funded
system… and we lost that because the same type
of right-wing thugs backing her now… back then
they gutted school funding.
“What we also had was a healthy middle class…
the post-war development of which was the
greatest anti-poverty development in history.
“Vote for Steve Zimmer.”
LikeLike
I recommend that people watch the debate
from the other night about Question 2
I’ve been watching it and focusing on how
the charter folks defend all the outside money
pushing Question 2.
Here’s the link:
I guess, from here on out, the following
will be charter promoters’ talking point for
countering the criticism about all of the
out-of-state money backing Question 2.
“Instead of talking about THAT,
we should be focusing on KIDS!”
I’m guessing that this was focus-group-tested, or
whatever.
Here’s that quote from the woman I’m calling
Charter Lady Marty Walz (like SNL’s Church Lady):
( 38:07 – 38:30 )
( 38:07 – 38:30 )
CHARTER LADY: “I would also note that
if we want to get into sources of money,
the ‘Vote NO’ campaign is also being funded
by out-of-state money as well, so I’m not really sure
this is where the debate should be happening. I think
the debate should really be about who’s doing the best
job educating children, as opposed to the adult concerns
about ‘Who’s donating to the campaign?’ I think we
should be ABOUT KIDS., NOT the ADULTS.”
(HUGE APPLAUSE)
The FEMALE MODERATOR ain’t having that, however.
A couple minutes later, when she gets a chance, she
lets loose at Charter Lady.
(40:44 – )
(40:44 – )
FEMALE MODERATOR: “I do want to ask you a
follow-up. First of all, you said that we shouldn’t
be worried about ‘the adult concerns’ about ‘where
money is coming from,’ in terms of the funding on
either side of this ballot question.
— (emphatic, loud tone)
“Did you REALLY mean THAT? I mean we have
an entire electoral system that people are VERY critical
of, that money — whether it be large unions, or large …
people call it ‘dark money’ that’s coming … it DOES
have a profound influence on our democracy, and
adults SHOULD be worried about that.”
(The Charter Lady then responds.
Once again, THE FIRST THING out of Charter Lady’s
mouth is that same “focus on the kids instead” talking
point. This quote is what immediately follows from
the above comment from the Female Moderator.)
CHARTER LADY: “What I was getting at.
is that in this setting today, one of the things is that
what gets left behind are THE CHILDREN. So
often we end up talking about these things (adult-centered
money questions).”
She then suggests that anyone interested just check
the websites with donations… but never responds to the
question. Also, those websites do not trace to the
actual sources of many of those donations.
LikeLike
The Boston Globe covered the debate:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/09/13/charter-debate-focuses-funding-equity-issues/IHBTlPng50nj2eqSB7V36L/story.html
At one point, the Female Moderator cites how,
with rare exceptions almost none of the Board
Members for charter schools are parents, or
live in the community. Instead, they are
corporate and financial executives who are
not elected by onyone. The charters are in
low income communities, and everyone on
their boards of directors are businesspeople
from upscale communities. Therefore, there’s
no mechanism by which thisparents or taxpaying
citizens in the communities in which these
charters are locatedcan execute any kind of
decision-making power, or that those charter
boards can be held accountable.
The response from Charter Lady Marty Walz is
basically.
“So what?”
… or that such a “local control” democratic system —
via democratically elected school boards — sucks
and should be done away with anyway.
BOSTON GLOBE:
“It is local control that got us into this situation that we’re in, where tens of thousands of children are being left behind by their local district schools,” said Marty Walz, a former Democratic state representative, fending off a question about the large number of corporate and financial executives who sit on the boards of Massachusetts charter schools.
,MARTY WALZ:
“The reason charter schools exist is because local school districts have wholly failed to educate far too many children in this state,”
Walz said at the debate, which featured an audience of partisans hissing and clapping at various points.
Walz then says that the accountability mechanism — the only one needed, she claims — is that if the charter schools fail to perform, they can be closed. That’s ultimate accountability, she argues.
That’s like recommending the Death Penalty — going only to that — rather than fixing the schools while the schools are alive.
I guess the response to that is …
“How about parents and taxpaying citizens being able to hold charter governance accountable WHILE THOSE CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE STILL IN OPERATION… before the “ultimate accountability” of closing those schools occur.?
As every critic from John Oliver …
to (yesterday) Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce …
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a48531/california-charter-schools/
… is complaining about. The scenario that Charter Lady Walz is defending and promoting creates a scenario for major corruption and egregious mis-management … and discovery and correction of such malfeasance can only happen IF— and it’s a big IF — the charter industry operates with some transparency in regards to the tax money is is spending, which they, as a rule, most certainly DO NOT. Indeed, it’s a big IF because those same charter folks fight tooth-and-nail any attempts to audit their books, or their admissions and expulsions policies, etc.
Eva at Success Academy has sued multiple times to prevent any examination of her organization.
The whole controversy regarding funding S.A.’s Pre-K is about this.
KIPP got Arne Duncan’s Ed. department’s okay to hide all this information from the public
Laura Chapman: Who Allowed KIPP to Hide Data?
The Center for Media and Democracy’s PR Watch reported that the KIPP charter chain received permission from Arne Duncan and U.S. Dept. of Education one that can only be discovered and corrected AFTER these outrages occur.
Here’s that part from the debate:
(34:30 – )
(34:30 – )
FEMALE MODERATOR: “Representative Walz, for some who oppose Question 2, one of the issues that it comes down to is this, and I’m going to paraphrase Carol Burris, she’s a former New York high school, and she says:
CAROL BURRIS:
” ‘The democratic governance of our public schools is a American tradition worth saving.’
” … and then the Annenberg institute for school reform at Brown University earlier this year released a study, and they analyzed EVERY board for EVERY charter school in the state of Massachusetts. and they found that ..
“31% of trustees (school board members) statewide are affiliated with the financial services or corporate sector. Only 14% were parents.
“60% of the charter boards had NO parent representation on their boards WHATSOEVER.
“Those that DID were largely confined to charter schools that served MOSTLY WHITE students.
“Here’s an example: City on a Hill (Charter) Schools in Roxbury — again, this is according to the Annenberg Institute Report — has schools in Roxbury and New Bedford, (has a) 14-member board, trustees for all three of those schools.
“ONLY ONE member of the board lives in New Bedford. Three live in Boston, but NONE in Roxgury. The rest live in (upscale communities) Brookline, Cambridge, Cohasset, and Hingham.
“So they (at Annenberg) ask:
” ‘How can those charter schools be considered locally controlled and locally accountable?’ ”
Charter Lady Walz responds by claiming — and winning applause from the charter folks stacked in the audience — that local control through school boards has “wholly failed’ to produce quality schools and educate children, and need to be wiped out. Those in the audience are cheering the end of democracy? Really?
Wait. Isn’t Massachusetts the highest achieving state in the U.S.? Really? She says that democratically-governed schools with elected school boards in Massachusetts have “wholly failed” students? Really?
At another point in the debate, Charter Lady claims their group is about improving all types of schools, but here she is recommending replacing all of them with privately-managed charter schools. So which is it?
The Moderator interrupts by insisting that Charter Lady answer the question about accountability, and Charter Lady brings up the only method needed — the Death Penalty AND THAT’S IT…. but no accountability while those schools are actually open. And we need to watch John Oliver again to find out how well that works out:
Watch the whole debate here:
LikeLike