Archives for the month of: March, 2017

Jim Sleeper writes here about Yale University’s intention to name a building in honor of Steven Schwarzman, to acknowledge his gift of $150 million.

When Yale announced a $150 million donation from alumnus and plutocrat Stephen Schwarzman last year to convert its historic Commons and Memorial Hall into the “state of the art” Stephen A. Schwarzman Student Center, an undergraduate, Nathan Kohrman, penned a deft summary of the man’s arrogant blundering through the American public sphere that the college has long cherished and nourished:

“What about Schwarzman —other than his estimated $10 billion fortune — does Yale find appealing? Surely not his belief, as of October 2015, that Donald Trump’s ‘political incorrectness’ makes him ‘good for democracy.’ Surely not his 2011 suggestion to raise taxes on the working poor because ‘skin in the game’ might make them work harder. Surely not his view that a 2010 bipartisan effort to close a private equity tax loophole — from which Schwarzman personally profits — was ‘like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.’ Surely it is not his prominence at the Koch brothers’ donor summits, where he’s donated undisclosed millions to political organizations that have cannibalized the GOP establishment and paralyzed the Obama administration.”

Kohrman’s remonstrance received only passing attention, but it merits urgent re-reading and distribution now that Schwarzman is chairing President Trump’s business advisory council. Fellow billionaire Michael Moritz’s characterization of him last week in The New York Times as one of Trump’s “Goodfellas” is only one of the reasons.

Schwarzman’s personal piggishness aside, the very premises, protocols, and practices through which he’s accumulated his $10 billion personal fortune and more than $360 billion for his private-equity Blackstone Group do far more damage to our economy, society and republic than he and other private-equity adventurers and hedge-fund heroes can ever repair through self-cleansing, self-celebrating philanthropy.

Sleeper says that major institutions should not name buildings for living figures. A good idea. But apparently Schwarzman’s gifts depend on the naming rights. When he gave $100 million to the New York Public Library, he insisted that its main building be renamed for him and that his name be engraved prominently on the building’s facade.

This is what happens when a society doesn’t support its cultural treasures. But what is Yale’s excuse?

Linda Darling-Hammond surveys the wreckage of the privatization movement and assesses whether Betsy DeVos’s failed policies in Michigan will inflict further harm on the nation’s embattled public schools.

The article is well worth reading. It contains useful data.

However, I have some caveats.

I greatly admire Linda and her scholarship, but we have a fundamental difference about charter schools. As currently configured, I see them as an integral part of the privatization movement. She thinks there are good charters and bad charters. This is true, but the charter idea itself has been captured by people like DeVos who are hostile to public schools and equity. I agree with the NAACP that no new charters should be created until charters meet the same standards of accountability and transparency as public schools, and stop cherry picking the students likeliest to get good test scores. The good charters, in my view, should be part of the school district, given a charter to meet a need, and regularly supervised for compliance with state and federal laws.

Darling-Hammond overstates, from what I know, the extent to which California’s charter industry is regulated and supervised; too many very bad charters are rejected by the district, rejected by the county, then approved by the state board. Even some under investigation for fraud get new charters in California. And supervision is virtually non-existent. It is the financial and political clout of the California Charter School Association that protects the charter industry, not their academic success.

Darling-Hammond accurately shows the segregating impact of school choice on the neediest children, as in New Orleans, where the best charter schools serve an elite white enrollment and poor black children get to choose among D and F rated charter schools.

In praising the charter schools of Massachusetts, she does not mention that the state overwhelmingly rejected an expansion of charters, nor does she mention the reasons for the negative vote:

1) deep budget cuts to public schools that serve most children to fund schools for a small number of children;

2) loss of local democratic control to unaccountable charter corporations;

3) recognition that some charters act like publicly-funded private schools, with their own admissions and discipline policies.

I wish she had mentioned that Al Shanker turned against the charter movement that he inspired. In 1993, only five years after touting the promise of small, unionized, teacher-led charter schools, Shanker declared that charters were no different from vouchers and that they had been captured by private interests that would use his idea to bust unions and destroy public education. He was right. More than 90% of charters are non-union. Although a few charter teachers have formed unions, they have to fight the charter owners and risk being fired. The anti-union Walton Family Foundation claims to have funded one of every four charters in the nation. It is also a major donor to Teach for America. It is “all for the kids,” of course, but the Waltons home state of Arkansas is one of the poorest in the nation. Some local beneficence and minimum wages for parents hired for full-time jobs might really help the kids more than charter schools and TFA.

Alex Molnar, research professor and publications director at the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder, writes here about the privatization movement and its sustained attack on public education.

He writes:

Today, politicians in thrall to neoliberal ideology seek to subordinate the democratic mission of public education to a theory of market-driven economic development and social organization. Policy deliberations are now dominated by of econometric modeling and production function research. This modeling and research is often used, inappropriately, to make decisions about the value of education reforms. The mathematical models used by researchers are made to “work” only by assuming away much of the real world in which people live and students learn. The phantasmagorical belief in neutral “scientific” expertise as the primary basis for policymaking has, therefore, profoundly antihuman as well as antidemocratic implications — a topic Sheila Dow takes up in “People Have Had Enough of Experts.”[5]

The major education reforms of the past 35 years — education vouchers, charter schools, tuition tax credits, and education savings accounts — all seek to remove public schools from the control of elected bodies; to subject them to the “laws” of the “market”; and to put them at the service of the economic elite. The world being called into existence is based on the belief that anyone, but not everyone, can succeed—a world of winners and losers, each of whom has earned his or her fate.

Of course, if the privatizers actually believed in science or evidence, they would have already abandoned vouchers, which has no research to support it, and whose results have been shown in some places to actually harm students. In effect, students are given a low-cost voucher to spend in a school where teachers are usually uncertified and the curriculum is based on 19th century ideas that have been long disproven. It is ideology, not science, that drives the voucher movement, and its wicked stepsisters, tax credits and education savings accounts.

Those who believe in evidence would also demand transparency and accountability from privately managed charter schools, which in many states are excused from such inconveniences and use their freedom to kick out and exclude students they don’t want.

Molnar examines the policies of the past 25 years and their neglect of the lives of people affected by them.

He writes:

Over the past two and a half decades, the poor in privatized urban schools have been successfully harnessed to the delivery of reliable profits to investors and munificent salaries to executives. At the same time, the working class has discovered that schools in their communities often cost more than they can afford to pay. The decades of wage stagnation, unemployment, and tax shifting have taken their toll. Teachers and the unions that had won them the relatively high wages, job security, and benefits that are a distant memory for many blue collar workers became a useful target for the ideologues and politicians pursuing neoliberal reforms.

The neoliberal argument is that public schools cost too much (the largest item in a school budget is for teacher salaries) and performed too poorly to justify the tax dollars they commanded. If “star” teachers could be freed from the union wage scale to earn what they were worth, the resulting competition would create incentives for better teacher performance. Mediocre teachers would earn less, and low performing teachers would be fired. The mechanism proposed for measuring teacher performance was assessing the performance of their students on standardized tests. So began the policy embrace of “Value Added Assessment” (VAA). In the kind of methodologically sophisticated, intellectually fatuous study that has become all too common, Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff claim to have found long-term economic benefits for students whose teachers have higher “value added” scores.[22]

This is a valuable overview of the recent past, the present, and the likely future. Unless we fight back hard.

Two years ago, when Jennifer Berkshire interviewed a senior staff member at the Walton Family Foundation, the staffer explained that vouchers were not right for Arkansas because a) there were not enough private schools in the state, but more importantly, b) school choice was so closely associated with segregation academies that it was a toxic topic in a state like Arkansas.

But now, with DeVos running the U.S. Department of Education, segregation academies are just swell!

The Walton family is pushing two voucher programs in the Legislature.

Fast forward two years and the Waltons are backing a controversial bill that combines two new school choice faves—1) *tax credit scholarships* that would let well-heeled Arkansans and corporations claim hefty state and federal tax deductions for donating to a nonprofit, which then disperses funds to choice-seeking parents in the form of 2) an education savings account, which lets parents pay for private school tuition using a *backpack full of cash.* So what’s changed? Not the number of private schools. Arkansas has just 230 of them, and that’s before you cross off the schools that charge well in excess of the $6K voucher amount. And not the legacy of racism that gave rise to many of these schools in the 1960’s and 70’s

Marvell Academy, the segregation academy in the Delta which opened in 1966, still has an entirely white student body in a town where the local high school is more than 90% Black. Nor is Marvell the only *white academy* that’s still going strong. There’s the Desoto School in nearby Helena, which prides itself on schooling students in *an understanding of our cultural heritage* and whose current enrollment stands at 257 white students and 1 Hispanic kid. The site of the largest number of segregation academies wasn’t the Delta but Pulaski County, home to LIttle Rock, where resistance to what white parents called *forced busing* led to a surge in the creation of new private school *options.* Like Central Arkansas Christian, formed in 1970 by *a core group of dedicated families and church leaders from all corners of Little Rock.* Today, just over 17% of the students who attend the Little Rock Public Schools are white. At Central Arkansas Christian High, that figure is close to 90%. Miss Selma’s, founded in 1965, continues to offer dynamic, quality education to parents who would prefer not to experience the fact that 40% of Little Rock’s residents are Black. Pulaski Academy, meanwhile, has made great strides towards integration since it opened as a private school for white students in 1971. Of its 1,078 students, 54 are Black.

The worst of the South is rising again. Segregation will soon become possible with the blessing of the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Justice Department (remember the Attorney General is Jefferson Beauregard Sessions of Alabama), and the U.S. Congress.

How fast can we reel backwards into the past, before the Brown decision? Watch the Arkansas legislature.

Duke University reports on North Carolina’s voucher program after three years.

The report adds to the growing evidence that “escaping” a public school to a religious or other private school does not “save” children.

Findings.

Vouchers may be as much as $4,200, far below the tuition of elite private schools ( which don’t have empty seats and are unlikely to accept students with low test scores anyway).

” The number of children receiving vouchers has increased from approximately 1,200 in the first year to 5,500 in 2016-17. The General Assembly has authorized an additional 2,000 vouchers for each year over the next decade, bringing the total to 25,000 by 2027.”

The current annual expenditure is $60 million. By 2027, the program will have cost $900 million.

 Based on limited and early data, more than half the students using vouchers are performing below average on nationally-standardized reading, language, and math tests. In contrast, similar public school students in NC are scoring above the national average.”

93% of the vouchers are used at religious schools.

There is virtually no accountability for voucher schools. “Accountability measures for North Carolina private schools receiving vouchers are among the weakest in the country. The schools need not be accredited, adhere to state curricular or graduation standards, employ licensed teachers, or administer state End-of-Grade tests.”

Vouchers are evidence-free. Rifhtwing ideologues believe that choice is the goal of choice. They promise dramatic gains that never materialize. One can only conclude that they they don’t care about the children because choice is an end in itself.

Steven Singer wrote a post about the top ten reasons that school choice is no choice. A bad choice. A failing choice.

Imagine his surprise when he was he was attacked by a surrogate for the Koch brothers!

Steve begins:

“You know you’ve made it when the Koch Brothers are funding a critique of your work.

“Most of the time I just toil in obscurity.

“I sit behind my computer furiously pounding away at the keys sending my little blog entries out onto the Interwebs never expecting much of a reply.

“Sure I get fervent wishes for my death.

“And the occasional racist diatribe that only tangentially has anything to do with what I wrote.

“But a response from a conservative Web magazine funded by the world’s most famous billionaire brothers!?

“I guess this is what the big time feels like!

“The article appeared in The Federalist, an Internet publication mostly known for anti-LGBT diatribes and climate change denial. But I had the audacity to write something called “Top 10 Reasons School Choice is No Choice.”

“I had to be taken down.

“And they had just the person to do it – far right religious author Mary C. Tillotson.

“You may remember her from such hard hitting pieces as “How Praying a Novena Helped Me Process This Election,” “Sometimes, Holiness is Boring,” and “Why It’s Idiotic to Blame Christians for the Orlando Attack.”
This week her article is called “Top 10 Reasons HuffPo Doesn’t Get School Choice.”

“Which is kinda’ wrong from the get-go.

“Yes, I published my article in the Huffington Post, but it is not exactly indicative of the editorial slant of that publication. Sure, HuffPo leans left, but it routinely published articles that are extremely favorable to school choice. Heck! Michelle Rhee is a freakin’ contributor!

“So I don’t think it’s fair to blame HuffPo for my ideas on school choice. A better title might have been “Top 10 Reasons Singer Doesn’t Get School Choice,” but who the Heck is Singer and why should anyone care!?

“Then she gives a quick summary of how my whole piece is just plain wrong: “Steven Singer of The Huffington Post would have you believe that when parents have more choices, they have fewer choices.”

“That’s like writing “Steven Singer of Consumer Reports would have you believe buying a used car means you may not be able to get anywhere.”

“I stand by that statement. They’re both scams, Mary. The perpetrators of school choice want to convince you to choose a school that gives you fewer choices than public schools do. Just like a used car salesmen may try to convince you to buy a clunker that won’t get you from point A to B.”

Steve then goes through his ten points and patiently explains to Mary why she is wrong.

Way to go, Steve! Now see if you can get Trump to blast you in a tweet!

Today was International Women’s Day. The perfect day in the Trump era to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of women’s healthcare.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-celebrate-international-womens-day-in-the-most-tone-deaf-way-possible/2017/03/08/670d3c42-0452-11e7-b9fa-ed727b644a0b_story.html

Let’s hope there’s generous funding in Republicans’ new health-care bill to prevent and cure tone-deafness.


“Wednesday was International Women’s Day, and to observe this annual commemoration House Republicans formally took up their legislation defunding Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of health services for women.


“House Speaker Paul Ryan, at a news conference Wednesday morning, boasted about ending the funding of Planned Parenthood, listing it as one of the things “we’ve been dreaming about doing.” And what better time to make this dream come true than on International Women’s Day, on the eighth day of Women’s History Month?


“This could be the beginning of a new legislative style in Congress:


Bills to “build the wall” could be marked up on Cinco de Mayo.


The Iranian nuclear deal could be scrapped later this month on Nowruz.


Plans to cut military assistance to Europe could be rolled out on D-Day.


“It’s enough to give new meaning to National Awkward Moments Day — observed on March 18.
President Trump, in a morning tweet, marked International Women’s Day by hailing women as “vital to the fabric of our society.”

“But that’s not quite the message his administration and its allies in Congress have been sending. Women’s rights activists held a strike and protests Wednesday, declaring it “A Day Without a Woman.” In the Trump White House, it must often feel like that kind of day — and not only because Melania is in New York.”

If you are a Disney shareholder, let the company know that you do not like its CEO teaming up with Trump for tax cuts for the rich while attacking the rights of blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, and immigrants. They too have families.

Consumer protests work. Do not go to see Disney’s latest movie. Do not buy its products. Use your buying power to say no to Hate.

Iger seems to think he can cozy up to Trump and reap the benefits of tax cuts while distancing himself from divisive issues like the Muslim ban, the Republican gutting of health care and ICE’s expedited deportation of immigrants. Even as Iger seeks exclusive access to the President, he expects the public to believe Disney is above the political fray.

Under a normal administration, it might be possible for a company to pick and choose what elements of a president’s policy agenda to support, and how to collaborate around a fixed set of issues. But this isn’t a normal administration. Right now, there are no sidelines. President Trump poses an unprecedented threat to our democracy and to the American people, and even corporations have to decide whose side they are on.

What Iger and his business analysts don’t seem to have factored in yet is that Disney’s customers, workers, and shareholders have the power to stop the company’s wagons and hold Disney to account.

People’s Action is leading a coalition that has already collected more than 511,000 signatures on a petition calling on Iger to resign from Trump’s board. People’s Action alone collected 76,922 signatures. Those signatures will be presented at a rally outside of the shareholder meeting to highlight the public outcry over Disney’s collaboration with President Trump. You can follow the rally on social media using the hashtags #BadMickey and #LetHimGo.

The New York Times reports that Scott Pruitt, the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is rapidly filling up the agency with fellow conservatives devoted to destroying the environment.

To friends and critics, Mr. Pruitt seems intent on building an E.P.A. leadership that is fundamentally at odds with the career officials, scientists and employees who carry out the agency’s missions. That might be a recipe for strife and gridlock at the federal agency tasked to keep safe the nation’s clean air and water while safeguarding the planet’s future.

“He’s the most different kind of E.P.A. administrator that’s ever been,” said Steve J. Milloy, a member of the E.P.A. transition team who runs the website JunkScience.com, which aims to debunk climate change. “He’s not coming in thinking E.P.A. is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Quite the opposite.”

Gina McCarthy, who headed the E.P.A. under former President Barack Obama, said she too saw Mr. Pruitt as unique. “It’s fine to have differing opinions on how to meet the mission of the agency. Many Republican administrators have had that,” she said. “But here, for the first time, I see someone who has no commitment to the mission of the agency.”

Top positions are going to Trump campaign staffers who are climate change skeptics.

They too will have to breathe the same polluted air as the rest of us. Will there be special gas masks for the rich? Will we wear filters over our faces to screen out pollution? Should we stop eating fish because the waters are polluted?

This is not a normal administration. The agency created by Richard Nixon in 1970 to protect the environment is now controlled by troglodytes who want to end the protection of the environment.

Greg Tsipusky, a specialist in “post-truth politics” explains why Trump’s base believes his lies.

The media reports what he says, they reports there is no evidence. His base does not read or remember more than what he said and they believe him.

Tsipursky proposes a different way to report honestly and accurately about flat-out lies, like the size of Trump’s inauguration crowd or his loss of the popular vote.