Archives for the month of: October, 2016

More on Nevada.

The list of high school graduation rates was posted yesterday. Charter schools had the lowest rates in the state.

The legislature and governor bestow billions on billionaires for stadiums and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. But public schools go without basic supplies.

To avoid paying for public schools, the legislature opens charter schools and offers vouchers.

But the vouchers explicitly violate the state constitution (which doesn’t necessarily mean the state courts will rule them unconstitutional since conservatives interpret state constitutions very loosely when vouchers are at issue).

And the charters include many of the lowest performing schools in the state (including the amply funded but highly disorganized Andre Agassi charter school) and have the lowest graduation rates.

Read this: http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2016/oct/13/nevada-high-school-graduation-rates-continue-to-cl/

The school with the lowest graduation rate in the state is Silver State Charter School, where only 18% graduated. That’s even worse than ECOT (Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow) in Ohio, where the graduation rate is 20%.

Not to worry, reformers! There will be no accountability for charter schools! In fact, the state has hired a receiver to fix Silver State charter school at $25,000 a month…do what? Who knows? It’s Nevada, where kids don’t count, especially if they are poor and Hispanic.

Just when you think the corporate reformers had run out of ideas, another pops up. Why not invite a non-educator to reorganize the schools? Why not give him a no-bid contract? Be sure not to include either educators or parents in the discussion of the future of the public schools.

Nevada, case in point, just handed a $1.2 million no-bid contract to a non-educator to reorganize the public schools of Clark County (Las Vegas).

During the October 18 Legislative Advisory Committee meeting about the Clark County School District (CCSD) reorganization, Committee members were presented with a proposal from TSC2, a recently formed consulting firm headed by Tom Skancke, former CEO of Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance (LVGEA). Firm consultants are slated to assist the CCSD with AB394 reorganization efforts, including administrative and financial changes, transition services and education policy development. The contract is for one year.

The $1.2 million contract caught some legislators and concerned parents by surprise. Several members of the Advisory Committee complained about having one day to review all the documents pertaining to the $1.2 million proposal. Legislators also wondered why there was no Request For Proposals (RFP), which would have made this contract subject to a competitive bid process.

Senator Mo Denis asked Glenn Christenson, a businessman who worked with Station Casinos and more recently collaborated closely with TSC2 principal Tom Skancke at LVGEA, how long the proposal had been in development. Mr. Christenson answered 6-8 weeks. Assemblywoman Olivia Diaz asked CCSD Superintendent Pat Skorkowsky how long it would have taken to go through a competitive RFP process, and he responded 6-8 weeks.

Senator Mo Denis asked, about parental engagement. He added that he couldn’t see the proposal succeeding without that input, and noted “there is no plan for parent outreach.”

Assemblywoman Diaz believed the scope of the work from the consulting firm was too broad and needed to be more focused and finite. In particular, she and Assemblywoman Dina Neal noted that the proposed work involved policy development, which is legally the responsibility of CCSD Trustees.

Assemblywoman Diaz also noted that the reorganization plan was designed to give power back to local administrators, parents and teachers and ensure that local schools were building a sense of community. Yet parents are completely absent from the proposed transition structure, she added.

Open the post to read the links.

David Sirota and a team of investigative reporters have discovered that the pension funds of teachers in Massachusetts are being tapped by Wall Street financiers to underwrite Question 2, which will authorize an expansion of non-union charter schools. Unions are spending millions of dollars to defend the public schools of Massachusetts against privatization. Meanwhile, their own pension funds are financing the campaign to increase privatization.

“When Massachusetts public school teachers pay into their pension fund each month, they may not realize where the money goes. Wall Street titans are using some of the profits from managing that money to finance an education ballot initiative that many teachers say will harm traditional public schools.

“An International Business Times/MapLight investigation has found that executives at eight financial firms with contracts to manage Massachusetts state pension assets have bypassed anti-corruption rules and funneled at least $778,000 to groups backing Question 2, which would expand the number of charter schools in the state. Millions more dollars have flowed from the executives to nonprofit groups supporting the charter school movement in the lead-up to the November vote. Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, himself a former financial executive, is leading the fight to increase the number of publicly funded, privately run charter schools in Massachusetts — and he appoints trustees to the board that directs state pension investments….

“This report is the latest in an IBT/MapLight series examining how anti-corruption laws are circumvented or unenforced. The cash flowing to the Massachusetts school initiative spotlights more than just a fight over education policy: It exemplifies one of the ways in which the securities and investment industry can get around a federal rule that was designed to restrict financial executives from giving campaign cash to governors with the power to influence state pension business.

“In the case of Massachusetts, since the federal rule does not cover money donated to governors’ policy initiatives, executives banned from donating directly to Gov. Baker are able to give to a constellation of groups that are pushing his pet cause — and that in some cases are advised by Baker’s political associates. Meanwhile, Baker’s appointees at the state pension board are permitted to continue delivering investment deals and fees to those same donors’ firms.”

The recent call for a moratorium on new charters by the NAACP, the Movement for Black Lives, and Journey for Justice has caused a crisis of confidence among corporate reformers. Suddenly they must confront the fact that they are leading “the civil rights issue of our time” by promoting school choice.

Robert Pondiscio of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute tackles the problem head on. Specifically he calls on Peter Cunningham to step down as editor of Education Post and give his job to a talented woman of color who is a charter school teacher and accomplished journalist. This would be very painful for Peter, who raised $12 million to start the blog from the Waltons, Eli Broad, and Michael Bloomberg.

He further suggests that other white reform leaders make way for people of color. Farewell, Wendy Kopp, Mike Petrilli, Michael Feinberg, David Levin, Richard Barth, the Kramers of Minneapolis, and dozens more who must give up their good jobs in education reform. Now, if only the billionaires would turn over their fortunes to people of color…

Thanks to Jay Greene for this moving story:

For the Al Copeland Award: Master Sergeant Roddie Edmonds

Jay Greene Blog; October 25, 2016

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

“They cannot all be Jews!”

The Battle of the Bulge, one of the largest battles in the largest war in world history, produced thousands of prisoners. Among the prisoners in the Stalag IXA camp were about one thousand men of the U.S. 422nd Infantry Regiment, who found themselves under the command of Master Sergeant Roddie Edmonds—a non-com, but still the regiment’s most senior surviving member.

Last year, his son, Rev. Chris Edmonds, had his first full opportunity to share his father’s story with the world—by dumb luck, just a month too late for his father to participate in last year’s Al Copeland Humanitarian of the Year Award process.

But The Al has a long memory, and it will take more than a little time to make it forget Master Sergeant Roddie Edmonds.

By standing German policy, Jewish POWs were to be separated from the rest of the POW population. By this time, the largest of the death camps in the western theater were no longer in business, so most of these POWs were taken away to slave labor camps where they were, with less efficiency but no less contempt for their humanity, worked to death.

Speaking in English, the German camp commander—a Major Siegmann—approached the POWs of the 422nd. He ordered that all Jewish men were to fall out and stand in formation in front of the barracks, then went to await them.

Whereupon Master Sergeant Roddie Edmonds ordered every man under his command to fall out and stand in formation in front of the barracks.

“I would estimate that there were more than 1,000 Americans standing in wide formation in front of the barracks with Master Sergeant Roddie Edmonds standing in front, with several senior non-coms beside him, of which I was one,” recalls Lester Tanner, a Jewish member of the regiment.

Siegmann protested: “They cannot all be Jews!”

Master Sergeant Roddie Edmonds replied: “We are all Jews here.”

Siegmann drew his sidearm and held it to Edmonds’ head.

Edmonds said: “According to the Geneva Convention, we only have to give our name, rank and serial number. If you shoot me, you will have to shoot all of us, and after the war you will be tried for war crimes.”

Siegmann, having been (in the words of the Jerusalem Post) “outfaced by Edmonds,” turned and walked away.

More than 200 of the prisoners were Jewish (all the time, that is, not just when Nazis were asking). Edmonds saved them all from near-certain death.

Chris Edmonds knew his father had spent 100 days in captivity, but had no idea anything like this had happened until he read a newspaper story a couple of years ago about Richard Nixon’s post-presidency search for a New York home. The article mentioned Tanner, who sold Nixon his house, and included the story about his father. Chris Edmonds began tracking down Tanner and other corroborating evidence, culminating in Master Sergeant Roddie Edmonds being named “righteous among the nations” by Yad Vashem last December. He is only the fifth American, and the first American serviceman, thus honored.

Just two weeks later, a more contemporary headline showed that the spirit of Roddie Edmonds lives on: “Muslims Protect Christians from Extremists in Kenya Bus Attack.” About a dozen heavily armed Somali terrorists captured a bus in El Wak, Kenya and demanded that the passengers disembark, with all Muslims moving to one side of the bus while Christians moved to the other side. But the Muslim passengers refused to cooperate, preventing a massacre. “These Muslims sent a very important message of the unity of purpose, that we are all Kenyans and that we are not separated by religion,” said Interior Minister Joseph Nkaissery. “Everybody can profess their own religion, but we are still one country and one people.”

Tanner recalls of Edmonds: “He did not throw his rank around. You knew he knew his stuff and he got across to you without being arrogant or inconsiderate. I admired him for his command.”

Now, so do we all.

The state’s grades for school districts in Ohio were released, and they were mostly awful. The idea for giving letter grades originated with Jeb Bush, and no one has ever produced an iota of evidence that they lead to school improvement although they surely produce teaching to the test and misplaced goals.

Charter school grades were even worse than public schools. 75% of charter schools ranked D or F. Two-thirds of charters ranked F, compared to 25% of public school districts. I don’t think this is what Jeb Bush had in mind. More than half of public school districts rated A, B, or C.

Two experienced superintendents decried the farce of school grades,  which are a holy grail to those on the right who are intent on defaming public schools and pushing privatization. 
But, not surprisingly, the spokesman for the right wing Thomas B. Fordham Institute (Where I was a founding member many years ago) defended the grades and said they probably show how bad the public schools are. The spokesman has a career in the privatization movement, but no experience as a teacher,  principal, superintendent. 

Why is a proponent of school choice on the reporter’s speed dial? Whom should the public believe about the validity of school grades? Working educators or lobbyists for privatization?

There is a hot race on the east end of Long Island, where I spend a lot of time.

The incumbent Congressman of the 1st Congressional District is Lee Zeldin, one of Donald Trump’s most outspoken surrogates.

Anna Throne-Holst is running against Zeldin. I went to a fundraiser to meet her, and she is very impressive.

Here she is on education issues, speaking out against Common Core, high-stakes testing, and privatization.

If you live on the east end, I urge you to vote for Anna Throne-Holst.

She will be a strong supporter of policies that are good for the environment, good for the economy, and good for children.

In the annual fight in Texas over school vouchers, one of the strongest, most consistent defenders of public schools is an influential group known as zpastors for Texas Children. They believe in the importance of public education as a democratic right and they strongly support the separation of church and state.

At recent legislative hearings in Austin, their executive director Charles Foster Johnson testified against a voucher bill that was passed in the State Senate. This battle occurs every year. Thus far, a coalition of rural Republicans and urban Democrats has managed to defeat vouchers in the House. Pastor Johnson and his colleagues have been a powerful group in staving off privatization.

[If you want to watch Pastor Johnson’s testimony, which was “from the heart,” and diverged from his written statement, watch here:

[Start the video at the 3:50 mark– that’s 3 HOURS and 50 MINUTES– move the cursor just shy of the left side of the middle. http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=37&clip_id=12360 ]

Testimony Before House Public Education Committee

By Charles Foster Johnson of Pastors for Texas Children

October 17, 2016

Chairman Aycock, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you and your committee today about what we have witnessed in our fine neighborhood and community public schools throughout our great State. My name is Charles Johnson, pastor of Bread Fellowship, Fort Worth. I am also executive director of Pastors for Texas Children, a statewide organization mobilizing the faith community for public education support and advocacy. We do two things: we minister to children in our local schools and we advocate for just policy for our children with our legislators. We were birthed out of the Baptist General Convention of Texas three years ago and now have over 1900 faith leaders of all denominations in churches all across Texas.

We are in our schools every day and see children from every ethnicity, every socio-economic background, and all walks of life succeeding beautifully on their path to productive citizenship in our society. We see children discovering their God-given talent and giftedness at the hands of dedicated teachers answering the call of God to pursue careers as educators. We witness daily the sheer moral power of public education as a building block of our society. This is why we are compelled to deliver the message to whoever will listen that universal public education is God’s will for all people—not a “choice” accorded to a few through a school choice voucher. I’d like to share several reasons why:

Public education is a moral duty. Education is a gift of God for all people. Just like the first human did in the Bible story so long ago, every person gets to name God’s world. Just as God brought all the creatures to the human to see what he would name them, so classroom teachers in schools all across our land teach our children to name God’s world. It’s the only way we can fulfill the first commandment of God to “be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it.” Education is a core component of the public interest. It is God’s common good for all God’s children—not just for those who are smart and stable and economically secure enough to pay for it with a school choice voucher.

Public education is a democratic duty. The founders of this nation determined at the outset of our Republic that in order to have a democratic society, we must educate all our children—not just a few children from families affluent enough to pay for it. Public education is a cornerstone of our American way of life. It is what has made America great. Our neighborhood and community schools are the places where our American history is taught, where our children learn basic civics, where the Pledge of Allegiance is said every day, where citizens are made. In America, citizenship is for all people—not just those few fortunate enough to be chosen by a school choice voucher.

Public education is a societal duty. It is incorrect for some of our friends to say that the money should follow the child because it is “my money.” With all due respect, it is not “my money” in a just society. We have a responsibility to participate in the well-being of all people. Do I get to have my own private security guard subsidized by the public through a “safety choice voucher?” Do I get to have my private swimming pool underwritten by the people of Texas because I don’t use the public pool? In a just and equal society, do I get a “transportation voucher” because I walk or ride a bicycle? The love of neighbor has founded our social order in these United States. We practice that love of neighbor through our taxation to support investments in that societal infrastructure.

Public education is a constitutional duty. The Constitution of the State of Texas says this in Article 7, Section 1: “A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.” The members of this legislative body swore a Bible oath to uphold that provision. There is zero authorization for this body to do anything with private schools.

Public education is a spiritual duty. We believe wholeheartedly in religious liberty as a gift of God from all people. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did not make it up. It is the principle upon which our nation is founded. So, we affirm that no overt religious instruction or activity should be advanced or established with tax dollars in our public schools. All faith is voluntary. It belongs in the home and the church—not in our public institutions. This government has no authority to advance religion in our public schools. Nor, on the other hand, does this government have any authority to meddle in our private and home schools through a school choice voucher. Any money that is diverted from the public trust to a private entity will be publically accounted for, thus inserting and intruding government into the voluntary associations of religious schools. God does not need Caesar’s money to do the Lord’s work. Never has. Never will.

But, faithful teachers take the love of God with them into our classrooms each and every day, ministering long hours at low pay while serving the poorest children in our midst. They instill moral character. They teach respect across the wide diversity of our population. They show unconditional love to all kids. They do this because they are called before God. This is why the dynamics that govern our capitalistic system do not operate in an educational environment. Market forces such as competition and cost benefit analysis simply do not apply in the formation of a human being. A classroom is a holy place of learning—not a marketplace of financial gain. To make commodities of our kids and markets of our classrooms is to misunderstand—and profane—the spirituality of education.

PO Box 471155 – Fort Worth, Texas 76147
http://www.pastorsfortexaschildren.com

Carol Burris concludes here her fourth installment of the sad story of the charter school movement in California. What once was a movement intended to help and collaborate with public schools has been taken over by the power-hungry and the greedy, intent on displacing and destroying public education.

California is now the “wild west of charter schools” because of the state’s refusal to oversee the operations of these schools. Public money is handed out to almost anyone who wants it, and supervision is almost non-existent.

Burris writes:

The shine is off the charter school movement. Freedom from regulation, the sine qua non of the charter world, has resulted too often in troubled schools, taxpayer fleecing and outright fraud. Charters have become material for late-night comedians. That is never a good sign; just ask the proponents of the Common Core.

The greatest blow to charter momentum, however, was delivered by the NAACP. When delegates’ voted for a moratorium on new charters, it unleashed the fury of the charterphiles. A piece on the pro-reform website Education Post was titled, “The NAACP Was Founded by White People and It Still Isn’t Looking Out for Black Families,” accusing the premier civil rights organization of being “morally anemic.” And yet, despite the vitriol and critique, the NAACP board of directors stood fast, supported its delegates, and issued a strong statement calling for charter reform.

The passage of Question 2 on the November ballot in Massachusetts, which would lift the cap on charter schools, once seemed a sure thing. Now support has plummeted. The ballot measure is down by 11 points, having lost support among Democrats, especially from the progressive wing.

The problems with loosely regulated charters can no longer be brushed aside.

In the past three posts of my series on California charters (here, here and here), I highlighted some of the serious problems that exist in a state with weak governing laws, a powerful lobby propped up by billionaires, and a governor who consistently vetoes bills aimed at charter reform. California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat who is usually progressive, has a blind spot when it comes to charters. The governor’s enthusiastic fundraising efforts on behalf of the two charters he started in Oakland came under scrutiny in the Los Angeles Times.

As a result, the problems with charters in the state bear an eerie resemblance to the those found in far more conservative states. As I spoke with Californians, I often felt quite depressed. The story line became clear—a state that generally holds progressive values financially abandoned its public schools with the passage of Proposition 13, thus crippling school funding. That was followed by a scramble to a charter solution to compensate for years of underfunding and neglect. That, in turn, opened the door to profit making schemes, corporate reformers hell-bent on destroying unions, and frankly, a lot of irresponsible educational models, such as storefront charters, boutique schools and “academies” linked to for-profits like K12.

There is hope, however, that California can alter its course. Despite all of the obstacles that stand in the way, there are Californians who want charter reform. They are exposing corruption, illegality, profit-making schemes and schools that are clearly not in the best interest of children. In this final piece, I will highlight some of their work.

Open the piece to see the links and to learn more about Burris’s reasons for optimism.

Dr. John H. Jackson of the Schott Foundation (Cambridge, Massachusetts) and Josie Greene, a director of another foundation (writing for herself, not her foundation), penned a powerful opinion piece about “a better education for all.”

As it happens, the purpose of this blog is to advocate on behalf of “a better education for all.” Not a better education for a few, or for some, but for all. That means better public schools for all children. That is why I oppose charter schools, school choice, and competition. As Jackson and Green post out, competition means winners and losers, and equality of educational opportunity will never be produced by competition but by a commitment great public schools in every district.

This is the letter that was posted by the Schott Foundation (I made two insertions of “bold” format):

A Question of Better Education for All

Dear Education Advocates,

Question 2, which will appear on Massachusetts voters’ ballots on Nov. 8, claims that it will increase educational choice and improve educational standards across the state. In fact, it would do the opposite.

For the past decade, Massachusetts has led the nation in academic achievement. Our students have even been top ranked internationally in a time when the country’s educational outcomes have slid year by year. Massachusetts accomplished this by taking bold steps that impact all students, most importantly changing the state’s school funding system to invest more in schools in high need, low-income areas so that all students have a better opportunity to achieve. There is still critical work to be done to close persistent opportunity gaps in the system, but we won’t get there if we go in completely the wrong direction. This would be to allow state officials to give up on investing in improving a system that serves all students in need.

Saying “yes” to Question 2 would move the Commonwealth off the path towards great public schools for all students. Question 2 proposes to use taxpayer resources to increase, by 12 per year, the number of charter schools that can only be attended by a few in the state.

When charter schools, which now serve only 4% of the state’s public school students, were added to the Massachusetts model, they were never intended to be a comprehensive “education plan” for a state or locality, but rather an experiment that might provide sparks of innovation whose best practices would be integrated into the main system. It is in that system that the great majority—a full 96%—of Massachusetts students are educated. While it’s true that, like any educational system, we have a mixed record on innovation as well as achievement—there are exemplary as well as troubled charter schools—the bigger issues we need to examine go to the heart of our commitment to high quality public education for all children in the Commonwealth.

Public schools and an equal commitment to all children are pillars of our democratic system. Accountability has been rooted in local control ever since Massachusetts pioneered the first statewide system focused on all children when it instituted compulsory K-12 education in 1852.

Charters run directly counter to this democratic value. The state can approve a charter school in a community over the strong objection of the school committee and all the other locally elected officials who are accountable to the voters in that town. Only the state, not any local officials, can examine the finances or exercise oversight over charter schools. As for their private boards, the Annenberg Institute for School Reform’s study of Massachusetts charter schools revealed that many board members do not even live in the district where the charter is located; 31% are financial or corporate executives, while only 14% are parents; 60% of charters in our state have no parent representation at all.

When the corporate concept of “competition” is used to justify the argument for increasing the number of charter schools (and student enrollment in them), we need only remind ourselves that competition means winners and losers.

When the corporate concept of “competition” is used to justify the argument for increasing the number of charter schools (and student enrollment in them), we need only remind ourselves that competition means winners and losers. Why would voters ever want to substitute that value for a commitment to ensuring a high quality education for every child? We should focus our attention and resources on what has been the most successful in proven outcomes in our state: Constantly improving our public education system. Charter schools draw funding away from public schools that educate the great majority of state students, ranging from accelerated learners to special education, and including English language learners, children with learning disabilities, and homeless children who register mid-year.

Expanding the number of charter schools reinforces a caste system of private, charter and public schools. This is not visionary leadership or the bold leap needed to keep all Massachusetts students advancing as leaders in the nation. There are social justice reasons for ensuring any changes to our current system are designed to improve the opportunity to learn for all students.

And there are compelling economic reasons as well. Equal education for all breaks the cycle of intergenerational poverty; it is the path to economic opportunity. Investing in a great education for all children in the Commonwealth is the only way to create a broad-based, diverse, well-educated workforce that is a magnet for employers and can fuel economic growth across the state. It also ensures full participation in our democratic society.

Voting “NO” on Question 2 will keep policymakers, educators, parents and students focused on the right question: What steps should we be taking to advance as the best public education system in the country for all Commonwealth students?