The New York Times published a fair and balanced account of the heated battle over Question 2.
It notes that $34 million will (so far) be spent on this question over whether to expand the number of charter schools. Most of it is “dark money” from out of state billionaires, like the Waltons of Arkansas.
It interviews people who favor Question 2 and people who oppose it.
It says that some leaders (like Elizabeth Warren) are against Question 2, while others (Governor Baker) support it.
It notes that some civil rights groups (like the Urban League) are for it, while others (the NAACP and Black Lives Matter in Cambridge) are against it.
The good news buried in the article is that the latest poll shows Question 2 losing.
It says that advocates for charters say it will cost no new money to open more charters, while supporters of public schools insist that it is already causing budget cuts in public schools and will lead to more budget cuts and school closings.
The bottom line of the battle is at the end of the article, where Maurice Cunningham of Boston University, who has studied the money behind the charter question, says:
“if you can’t stop the hidden billionaire money in Massachusetts, then you can’t stop it anywhere.”
Conversely, if the people of Massachusetts can beat back the billionaires, despite their command of television and the Boston Globe, then citizen action can beat the billionaires everywhere.
What is so thrilling about the battle over Question 2 is that everything we have discussed on this blog is coming out into the open: the NAACP, with its call for a moratorium, has stripped away phony claims about school choice being the “civil rights issue” of our time. The billionaires’ privatization agenda is debated daily by parents and civic activists. The fact that school choice is being pushed by Republicans and opposed by many Democrats is explicit.
If the people of Massachusetts vote “NO” on Question 2, it will be a resounding defeat for the billionaires and their Dark Money groups, and it will echo around the nation.
If the people of Massachusetts vote “NO” on Question 2, it will signal their determination to build a strong public school system for all children, not simply add a few more escape hatches for a few children, which would debilitate the public schools.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
From the NY Times:
“Ms. Plancher, a registered nurse, was glad her youngest child had the charter option. But with four charter schools in her area, she has seen two public schools close. She said she worried that adding more charters would further crimp the traditional schools.
“I think whatever we have is enough,” she said. “We cannot pick and choose which kids we educate and leave the rest out.”
This pretty much nails the pro-charter movement for what it is. It is incredible that it takes a mom who sends her kid to a charter school to say “The emperor has no clothes”. Because gullible or corrupt reporters like David Leonhardt keep insisting that the emperor is wearing the finery that he is told to believe.
Save two things:
1) they incorrectly summarized the ballot question. The cap lift does not solely focus on nine communities. It says that the lowest performing 25% will be prioritized IF there are more than twelve applications in a year. That is unlikely.
2) Massachusetts has two virtual schools chartered by the state: Greenfield Virtual and TEC Academy.
BELOW is a tweet that includes a scan of November 3, 2015 email arranging a phone conference for a “Question 2” strategy meeting.
The email’s recipients’ list shows how truly jacked in that Governor Baker & the Massachusetts Department of Ed is to the charter school industry, and vice-versa.
Among those listed is Jim Peyser, the then-and-current Massachusetts Secretary of Education — the guy whose job it is to protect, manage, and promote all of Massachusetts’ traditional public schools.
Here he is the freakin’ Secretary of Ed. participating in meetings (there are multiple such emails with the same recipients’ list for other such meetings) of a group whose goal is promoting one sector — the charter sector which comprises only 4% if Massachusetts’ publicly funded schools — at the expense of the other — the traditional public schools that have been teaching Massachusetts students for over two centuries, and which comprises 96% of Massachusetts’ public schools.
This email was sent by Eileen O’Connor, a leaders and spokesperson for Great Schools Massachusetts, and partner in the firm Keyser Public Strategies:
She’s the wife of Will Keyser. According to David Sirota’ expose of dark money coming into Massachusetts from out of state to pass Question 2:
“Mr. Keyser is a principal of Keyser Public Strategies, a key strategist for Gov. Baker’s 2014 campaign, a lobbyist for Families for Excellent Schools and consultant to the Great Schools Massachusetts campaign. Ms. O’Connor is also a principal of Keyser Public Strategies, communications professional, and spokesperson for Great Schools Massachusetts.”
Now both “Question 2” proponents and THE BOSTON GLOBE are clients of Keyser Public Strategies. So with the GLOBE’s endorsement of Question 2, you have a Keyser client endorsing another Keyser client. Might Keyser offer the Globe discount as a quid-pro-quo?
http://blogs.wgbh.org/masspoliticsprofs/2016/10/28/breaking-keyser-client-endorses-keyser-client/
No wonder it took the New York Times to cover this story properly.
Anyway, without further ado, here’s the tweet which includes that intriguing email recipients’ list: (You have to hit the “CONTROL” then “+” keys a bunch of times to enlarge and read the email portion of the tweet)
https://twitter.com/MeghnaWBUR/status/795057815610159104
What’s interesting is EXACLTY WHO is on the recipients list of that November 3, 2015 email that Eileen O’Connor sent out to arranged that telephone conference strategy session for Question 2: ( I GOOGLE-searched the ones whom I didn’t know.)
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
CASE OF CHARACTERS
(email recipients for Question 2 phone conference)
— Jim Conroy — Sirota says, “Conroy was Governor Baker’s 2014 campaign manager and served briefly in the governor’s office before departing for private consulting work. He is also a consultant to Great Schools Massachusetts.”
— Jim Peyser, the Massachusetts Secretary of Education, who, for a period, was simultaneously on the Board of the charter lobbying group Families for Excellent Schools while serving and Ed. Secrentary (as Edushyster put it om her piece “ALL IN THE FAMILY”… For a while at least, Peyser “was lobbying himself.”)
— Jeremiah Kittredge, Families in Schools CEO
— Beth Anderson, Founder and CEO of the Phoenix Academy Charter Network (Linkedin)
— Jon Clark, Co-Director of the Edward Brooke Charter Schools (Linkedin)
— Will Herberich, Managing Director, Communications, Families for Excellent Schools
— Jack Brennan, former legislator and current lobbyist with The Brennan Group (Linkedin)
— Lynda Bernard, Vice-President of The Brennan Group (Brennan Group website)
— Michael Morris, Principal of the Beacon Strategies Group, a PR, lobbying firm (Beacon Strategies website) “a top-ranked public affairs and issue advocacy firm”
— Clare Kelly, consultant Beacon Strategies Group (Linkedin)
— Michael Bergen, Principal, at Beacon Strategies Group (Linkedin)
— Stephanie Ruocco, Executive Assistant and Office Manager at ObserveT, (Linkedin)
— Sean Anderson, Chief Program Officer, Families for Excellent Schools
— Kelly King-Lewis, Executive Assistant / HR Manager at the Office of the CEO, Families for Excellent Schools, NYC
— Christina Kennedy (it’s New England, so there’s a zillion, but here’s one with a charter school connection) Consultant, Bronx Community Charter School (Linkedin)
— Marc Kenen, CEO, Massachusetts Public Charter Schools Association
— Dominic Slowey, the Boston Consulting Group, (formerly), currently Slovey/McManus Communications, a Boston P.R. firm
— Jennifer Chow, who goes back a way with Governor Baker. in 2006, Governor Baker was CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and later, MA Sect. of Admin & Finance, former MA Sect. of Health & Human Services, Throughout these jobs, Baker regularly partnered with Chow, who “the Manager of Enrollment and Outreach” for Health Care for All.
As governor, Baker named Chow to a government advisory council:
Click to access members.pdf
— Kathryn “Katy” Zazzera, since April 2016, she’s been Assistant Manager of Community Relations with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
At the time of this November 3, 2015 email coordinating key people on the Question 2 push, Zazzera was working for Governor Baker in Massachusetts state government:
From Katy Zazzera’s Linkedin
Program Coordinator for the Senior Advisor
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
January 2015 – April 2016 (1 year 4 months)Boston, MA• Manage Senior Advisor’s schedule and meetings
• Assist on issue-based research
• Oversee and run Governor’s Statewide Youth Council
• Greet and answer all phone calls in Executive Office and other administrative duties
• Coordinate Executive Office events
— Ryan Coleman — Legislative Affairs Director, Office of the Governor of Massachusetts
Oh and BELOW, one of the attendees of these corporate “YES on 2” strategy meetings write a letter pushing Question 2 —
Beth Anderson, Founder and CEO of the Phoenix Academy Charter Network
While she acknowledges her position at Phoenix, Beth claims it’s not her mid-six-figure salary that motivates her to work to expand her multi-million-dollar charter network … oh no, not at all… she says she’s doing this because she just a mom who cares, and because this is her way of striking a blow against “poverty, racism and oppression” by “create(ing) new and better ones that serve our youth and young adults most challenged by poverty, racism and oppression.:
http://goodschoolhunting.org/2016/11/a-letter-from-beth.html
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
BETH ANDERSON:
“I am sending this email widely, to friends in my life, fellow parents in my daughter Ciara’s district public school, my son Galileo’s JCC school, and most of all, supporters and colleagues in an almost 30 year fight to disrupt bad educational practices and create new and better ones that serve our youth and young adults most challenged by poverty, racism and oppression.
” … ”
(And mid-six-figure charter mogul Beth throws in the accusation that self-centered, racist, upscale white people are blocking the charter industry’s “civil rights” crusade. It’s just pure coincidence, I guess, that Beth’s fight for “civil rights” simultaneously helps her move into the 1% at the same time.)
“So, we are squarely in a civil rights fight here. Let’s not forget our history as a nation. The public charter school battle is a question of rights and access and power. In this ballot question, we have yet another situation where mostly white families are responsible for critical, life altering decisions that are going to affect the lives of black families and families of color. This is far from right and is the reality of poverty.
“Just like in 1954 with desegregation, and in 1964 with civil rights and in 1973 with bussing in Boston, we as a people have the ethical responsibility to make this disparity in our cities disappear for the young people that can and should be our citizens and leaders tomorrow.
“How many of us have contributed to ‘Be the change’ thinking over the years?”
Seriously, she’s invoking the 1954 “Brown vs. Board of Education”?
In the last 60 years, he charter movement has done more to re-segregate schools than any other factor. Study after study after study shows this. Even charter advocates concede this, arguing,
“Yes, there IS resegregation, but unlike before, the schools are separate AND equal, so this time that’s okay.”
Here’s a tweet with a quote from former Massachusetts governor and the 1988 Democratic Nominee for President, Michael Dukakis:
https://twitter.com/PuleoTweets/status/795097260292014082
I’ve been perusing the Twitter-verse for fun tweets.
Here’s a couple more:
A Paul Schlichtman quote about who’s really behind Question 2:
Oooh, snap!
Oh, and here’s one where $500,000/year KIPP Charter CEO gets burned when he stumps for Question 2, but Krissy tweets back a leaked graph for KIPP charter expansion plans in Massachusetts, should Question 2 pass — it even has the words “assumes Cap Lift on the graph(:
(jog down to see the graph,and Krissy’s snarky, “Thanks for your concern and your advocacy, but we’re all set (with our schools) here in Boston.”)
https://twitter.com/KrissyCabbage/status/794892850983010305?lang=en
I still haven’t got the hang of this:
Here’s another try at the Paul Schlichtman tweet:
That’s more like it!
The charter backers want people to think the districts affected are all low-income cities so suburbanites won’t feel threatened. But Cambridge, Somerville, and Medford — none of them especially poor and all with good schools that parents like — are close to the “cap” and very likely to get more charter schools if Question 2 passes. Which means some of those good public schools will be closed.
Boston also has many good schools that parents like, which will be closed or damaged by more charters.
The governor’s claim that “If you like your school, Question 2 won’t affect you” is a political fantasy.
Diane, while this article is better than others, this is not a “fair and balanced” article. It accepts the “yes” argument that this only affect 4% of urban districts. That is patently false. The initiative, in plain language, makes clear that 12 schools can open anywhere in the Commonwealth. Only if there are more than 12 does the Board of Elementary and Second Education
Second, it accepts without comment the “yes” sides argument that no money has been drained from public schools. That would suggest that over 200 school committees who passed resolutions urging a “no” vote are liars or incompetent. In fact, the fixed costs of real public schools, plus their higher costs to educate — as we do — the english language learners and special needs students the charters don’t, mean that the cost to real public schools is huge – $450 million a year, after state reimbursements.
Finally, while I agree with Maurice’s final quote, the notion that labor started this thing is just not right. This started when charter proponents decided that they wanted to send us down a slippery slope to a totally privatized education system, refused any compromise on funding or oversight, and then harnessed the Governor and $25 million in dark money to win their right to privatize public education in the state that invented it.
No thank you.
Max,
You are right.
I also disagree with the headline of a “balanced” NYT article. It cites pro-charter claims without any fact-checking. This is the kind of false-equivalency which Paul Krugman regularly decries in the presidential race. At best, it tempers the horribly one-sided column by David Leonhardt.
The basic problem is that NYT article is comparing spin with skepticism, or a flaunted study with a validity check. Spin wins. Fortunately, Mass voters are getting information from more sources than the NY Times, so its coverage won’t have much effect.
Mainstream media needs to start digging a little deeper and see what’s really going on just below the top layer of “high performing” charters. The issues are many. To me, it’s their unsustainability: too much teacher turnover (due in part to the wrecking of the teaching profession by the self-same group of charters!) and too much corruption once the cap on the industry is lifted.
The way to look at the charter industry is like a massive Ponzi scheme. Of course the initial results are better. They always are with a Ponzi scheme, and in Massachusetts they’re especially better because of self-selection, as Jerzy Jazzman points out. At a certain point the whole system collapses under the weight of corrupt operators and no good way to expand further. Cases in point: New Orleans, Detroit, Nashville and the whole state of Ohio.