On the day before the vote on Betsy DeVos’s nomination, billionaire Eli Broad announced that he opposed her nomination to be Secretary of Education. It was a joke. He knew that his statement was meaningless and that she would be confirmed, but he was pretending to be a Democrat. The reality is that Broad and DeVos are on the same page when it comes to privatization. He is trying to grab control of half the children in Los Angeles for privately-run charter schools, and she approves. No doubt, she wishes California also had vouchers, because in her view, you can never have too much school choice. She and Broad consider local school boards a hindrance to their plans. Results don’t matter either. Nor does segregation. Choice over all.
In response to the unfettered expansion of charters–and to the ongoing financial scandals that crop up in this unregulated sector–several bills were introduced in the legislature to rein in the charters. One of them said that local school districts should make the final decision about whether to authorize new charters. Under current law, if the local school board says no, their decision may be reversed by the county board of education. If the county board of education says no, their decision may be reversed by the state board of education. If the governor is charter-friendly as Jerry Brown is, the state board can be counted on to say yes to almost any charter, no matter how much local opposition there is, and no matter how badly the new charter will damage existing public schools, skimming its students and sucking away resources.
So a bill was written–SB808– to give the local school boards the authority to block new charters that are neither needed nor wanted. The bill was supported by the California Teachers Association. It was opposed by the California Charter School Association, the lobbyists for the billionaires who love privatization.
The bill’s author just pulled it; it will not be introduced to the Senate Education Committee. The bill’s author, Democrat Tony Mendoza, met with charter school supporters last week and had second thoughts.
No doubt, Betsy DeVos is thrilled.
How many millions or billions will Eli Broad and his friends in the CCSA spend before they admit that all they accomplished was to destroy public education?
This will be Eli Broad’s legacy: not his museum; not the buildings where he has carved his name. But his destruction of public education in Los Angeles and across the state of California.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
No doubt sweet sweet cash was involved. $27 Million spent on 2016 CA Legislative Races by pro charter groups, the vast majority by the Parent Teacher Alliance (or “fake PTA” as I like to call them) in So Cal. (over $10 MM) and EdVoice in No.Cal. (over $9 MM).
Oligarchs who neither, live near the communities they pillage, nor shoulder any tax burden, aren’t new in history. What’s new is to have so many traitors to U.S. democracy. There are an unconscionable number of Americans working to deliver common goods into the hands of American oligarchs.
“What’s new is to have so many traitors to U.S. democracy.”
Yes, Linda, that is what they are and we should be driving that point home at every opportunity!
Ironic!
Sent from my iPhone
>
Todd Young (R) is my Senator from Indiana. Here is an email reply that I just received from him. Good grief, it is possible for Congress to pass a law requiring states to establish a voucher program.
………………..
Thank you for contacting me about the Choices in Education Act of 2017. I appreciate hearing from you about this legislation.
Sincerely,
Todd Young
United States Senator
This is crazy talk. Feds have no jurisdictional right to do this. Aren’t the conservative republicans opposed to unconstitutional bureaucratic overreach? … say what about State’s Rights?
So glad you brought this up, carolmalaysia. I hope Diane will soon make some posts on the voucher bills proposed so far. There is another one, posted by Chiara somewhere, that would allow individuals [@$4250] $ corporations [@ $100k] to count contributions to ESA’s (orgs collecting contributions to charter/ voucher scholarships & distributing minimum 90% of $ collected to K12 student families).
The proposed bill you cite is more radical.
However, from what I’ve read, this bill’s main hurdles are (a)most state’s Blaine amendments which would have to be repealed, & (b)the reqt for Congress to go back into ESSA & pull it apart to make this happen, which I gather is not exactly on the front burner.
More interesting to me is an analysis of DTrump’s campaign promises re: vouchers. He proposed fed repurposed ed funds of $20 billion, & noted that if states could raise an addl $110billion, that would be sufficient to provide 12k for each kid in poverty. I’ve done some calculations. That $130billion, if (a big if) it could be raised, would provide… a $5200 voucher to each kid receiving free/reduced-price lunch (our proxy for child poverty).
So, the message I get is (a)DTrump’s heart is not in this fight… & (b)the fight for us will be in holding their [Congress’s] feet to the fire & demanding real numbers to back up their proposed bills.
“It would also require states to establish a voucher program….” What ever happened to the doctrine of “States Rights”? “States Rights” is a doctrine and strategy in which the rights of the individual states are protected by the U.S. Constitution from interference by the federal government.
In New Mexico the use of tax dollars, whether state or federal, cannot, per the State Constitution, be used for vouchers in private schools, which includes for profit, non-profit, charters, or religion based schools. It will be interesting to see how the US Department of Education and the US Congress can override a State Constitution.
This idea of vouchers on states should be taken to the highest courts and lawyers should be lining up to the legal processes going now.
I so agree! The message I got from ESSA is that it cuts off the DOED’s– esp the Secy of DOED’s– authority off at the knees. These dregs of NCLB/RTTT remain: annual testing in grades 3-8 plus 1 hs grade, & states have to get DOEd’s approval of their stds/assessment system. I cannot twist that into a new top-down fed DOED mandate for block grants/ vouchers. To do that, looks like Congress would have to go back to the dwg-board on ESSA– can’t imagine they’re up for that after dragging their feet for 15 yrs & finally putting thru a new law in 5/16!!
Such vast amounts of public tax money is being skimmed away by charter schools and sent into corporate and private pockets that the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education has issued a report that, because of their lack of accountability to the public, charter schools pose a risk to the Department of Education’s goals. The report finds that “Charter schools and their management organizations pose a potential risk to federal funds even as they threaten to fall short of meeting the goals” because of financial fraud and the artful skimming of tax money into private pockets.
Even the staunchly pro-charter school Los Angeles Times (which acknowledges that its favorable reporting on charter schools is paid for by a billionaire charter school advocate) complained in an editorial that “the only serious scrutiny that charter operators typically get is when they are issued their right to operate, and then five years later when they apply for renewal.” Without needed oversight of what charter schools are actually doing with the public’s tax dollars, hundreds of millions of tax dollars that are intended to be spent on educating the public’s children is being siphoned away into private pockets and to the bottom lines of hedge funds.
The Washington State Supreme Court, the New York State Supreme Court, and the National Labor Relations Board have ruled that charter schools are not public schools at all because they aren’t accountable to the public since they aren’t governed by publicly-elected boards and aren’t subdivisions of public government entities, in spite of the fact that some state laws enabling charter schools say they are government subdivisions. That’s common sense to any taxpayer: Charter schools are clearly private schools, owned and operated by private entities. Nevertheless, they get public tax money but have virtually no public record accountability of what they do with the tax money they divert from genuine public schools.
There are many tactics used by many charter school operators to reap profit from their schools, even the so-called “non-profits”, such as private charter school boards paying exorbitant sums to lease building space for their school in buildings that are owned by corporations that are in turn owned or controlled by the charter school board members or are REIT investments that are part of a hedge fund’s portfolio. There are many other avenues of making a hidden profit from operating private charter schools.
In addition to the siphoning away of money from needy schools, reports from the NAACP and ACLU have revealed facts about just how charter schools are resegregating our nation’s schools, as well as discriminating racially and socioeconomically against American children of color; and, very detailed nationwide research by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at UCLA shows in clear terms that private charter schools suspend extraordinary numbers of black students. Based on these and other findings of racial discrimination in charter schools, the NAACP Board of Directors has passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on charter school expansion and for the strengthening of oversight in governance and practice.
Therefore, in order to assure that tax dollars are being spent wisely and that there is no racism in charter schools, charter schools should minimally (1) be required by law to be governed by school boards elected by the voters so that the charter schools are accountable to the public; (2) be a subdivision of a publicly-elected governmental body; (3) be required to file the same detailed public-domain audited annual financial reports under penalty of perjury that genuine public schools file; and, (4) be required to operate so that anything a charter school buys with the public’s money should be the public’s property.
Those aren’t unreasonable requirements. In fact, they are common sense to taxpayers and to anyone who seeks to assure that America’s children — especially her neediest children — are optimally benefiting from public tax dollars intended for their education. But, after the internal scams of charter schools become exposed to taxpayers through routine public reporting, the charter school industry will dry up and disappear, and the money that the charter school industry has been draining away from America’s neediest children will again flow to those in need.
Well stated, Scisne. Enjoy your comments as they are all spot on!
And yet BDeVos suggests a block-grant voucher program, wherein public funds spent will not be accountable via measurements of ed-achievement of any description, nor even subject to audit to anticipate financial mismgt nor to identify fraud occurred, because… “parents will walk with their feet.”
“_____ pose a risk to the Department of Education’s goals”. WOW .. What are those goals? How have programs been selected and funded to push these vague goals over several decades? …. I am buried in verbiage and disconnected from reality thanks to trying to follow US Dept of Ed and Arne Duncan and the many other crews.
Can somebody explain why Jerry Brown is pro-charter, while he has pledged to fight any federal messing w/CA’s scientific research & capabilities (as in, climate change is REAL), they’ve had a healthcare exchange for years & he’s pro-choice. So–why the pro-charter stance when he’s liberal/progressive in all other political areas? Is he a DFER? Has he taken large campaign contributions from Broad? From Stand for Children? What???
Also–as everywhere–if you have DFERs/DINOs, PRIMARY THEM!!! Go to their meetings and TELL THEM that you all WILL vote them out of office. So many settle for any-Dem-will-do-just-so-we-don’t-have-a-Republican. NOOOO!!! That sort of thinking has, in large part, put us in the predicament we are in today. &–just take a look at the special election to replace Pompeo in Kansas, last Tuesday. Dems are crowing that Thompson (the Dem) ONLY lost by 7 pts. Again–NOOOOO! He LOST! We had a genuine, Progressive Dem (a civil rts. attorney, no less), & he received zilch backing from the DNC, the DCCC & the Kansas Dem Party (at the 11th hour, they got some phone banking together–whoop-de-do!) Losing by 7 pts. is STILL losing–& that Kansas district is–Wichita–Koch Country, folks. Anyway, FYI, Jas. Thompson has pledged to run in the 2018 regular election, & this time he should win–so start sending your $27 (&, yes, he was endorsed by Bernie) or whatever you can (Check James Thompson, Kansas, website or Facebook).
In the meantime, CA readers, if you can further answer my ??? about Brown, please do–thank you.
For a while, years ago, I thought Gov Brown really got it. But he started two charters when he was mayor of Oakland and has a soft spot for them. He even vetoed a bill to prohibit for profit charters
As Diane indicates, Brown vetoed a bill banning for profit charters. His justification was that it was and “impractical restraint” on charters. He last year he vetoed a bill which passed both houses and is back again this year, which would make charters subject to open meeting, conflict of interest and open records laws, on very similar grounds. Way back in 2013 he vetoed a bill that would have closed a loophole that allowed high schools schools that converted from public to charter to get more than the fair share of funding, at the expense of other schools in their home districts. He has appointed pro-charter people to the State Board of Education, which routinely approves almost any charter that comes before it, after being rejected at two levels of appeal below. Despite scandal upon scandal as outlined in report after report, we Californians know better than to expect Brown to stop the flood of charters in our state. Luckily for public education, he terms out in 2018. If we can keep the Legislature from being bought off by the charter industry before then, maybe the next Governor will let the legislature do its job.
Thanks for the explanations, Diane & Ray.
Very disappointing. I hope that you California residents (amongst whom includes my daughter) can elect a good, Progressive (REAL) Dem., who is also pro-public education (actually, a seminal part of being progressive).
Could Ted Lieu be that person-?
To me, from my back seat on the east coast, Brown is the quintessential Californian. They have a progressive streak– they were the pioneers, who had ideals & hope for something far different than offered by the mainstream– but they also have that typically-rural, don’t-tread-on-me, mind-your-own-biz, I got here by my own bootstraps radical conservative streak. You see it played out in their politics, seesawing between far-right & far-left candidates. He seems to embody the two extremes.
Re: Jerry Brown, from a Californian,
As I have previously stated, many of our charter schools are quite good, providing a respite from horrible school systems with a wide range of acceptable /unacceptable schools. Many of our charters are single schools, with full transparency and available budgets. The Kipp/Green Dot model is not the only model. Brown is trying to keep some high quality schools going during this catfight.
As I have already stated before in different terms, progressive perspectives are not “one size fits all.” Some progressives did not vote for Bernie and are concerned about his lack of willingness to support the Democrats in the current neo-Fascist onslaught.
It’s going to take a range of perspectives to win back our country.
I agree about the range of progressive viewpoints we need to embrace to win back our country.
But cannot help but wonder whether CA would be embroiled in this charter mess had they not chosen via ’78 Prop 13 to cut their funding to pubschs by 57%. That is what I’m talking about: CA in the ’60’s (along w/NYS) w/the best pubschs in the nation– & to boot (unlike NYS) w/a free state college sys rivalling any in the country. By the ’80’s, pubsch K12 qual plummeting to the point that by ’90’s anyone w/a dime opted for Cath et al privates, & soon after state colleges no longer free. To me, this is the quintessential CA issue: polarization between far-right & far-left, which responded like a quiver to globalization issues: suddenly the far-right cals the shots– even tho CA has the biggest state economy in the nation.
It would be interesting to get a detailed unbiased analysis of all of these school choice options. Arizona has had considerable increases in student performance on NAEP since it provided an avenue for much greater school choice. The Basis Schools, which are for profit, are focused on providing advanced academics to students. Basis is serving that niche quite well at least according to test scores and family satisfaction. This “high effort, high performance” arena had been neglected for various reasons in many school districts.
It’s very profitable to educate only high achieving kids while having absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for the kids who can’t make it in your school!
Let’s turn Stuy and Bronx Science over to charters! And make sure they get to drum out the kids who struggle, something that even Stuy can’t simply do!
Let’s turn Boston Latin over to charters. Except this time, any kid who enrolls and isn’t doing advanced work without help gets put on a got to go list. I’m sure there are other high achieving kids to take their place whose parents will happily pay for any tutoring needing.
Why should the public benefit from the cost-savings of educating the kids who can do advanced work in classes of 34 when there are privately run charters whose CEOs can get rich with that money? Better that a few CEOs who are favorites of right wing billionaires get rich than using that money in the schools where children struggle. After all, if a kid can’t make it in one of those BASIS schools, why should he even be worthy of anything more than a 2nd rate education?
FYI — the point of charters was supposed to be to address the FAILING schools. Of course, since charters themselves have failed so tremendously in that area (but not financially since so many of their CEOs are very rich!) it’s time to dump those kids and focus on the profitable ones. Charters are no longer to address failing schools – they are to make money! Let’s all invest now.
I just wish charters would be honest about how they have failed to run credible schools serving at-risk kids unless they are allowed to drum out as many low performing kids as they choose. At least we can all just vote to let them get rich by teaching the high performing kids they are so desperate to teach now. A little honesty would go a long way. I’m glad that Danaher M Dempsey Jr at least is wiling to tell the truth — that if we let charters have the franchise on the most advanced kids, they can sure make an impressive profit for their CEOs!
No idea what profits if any Basis makes. In regard to the possibly neglected sometimes troubled and harder to educate students, the entire AZ school population has shown better performance since greater choice has been implemented. Would it have been better not to enact greater choice in AZ and just hope for improvement? … In no way am I suggesting that what is working in AZ will be the best path elsewhere. But please do not condemn AZ school choice because of an ideological misalignment with your beliefs. …. I do not believe the continuation of no choice would have produced the improvements.
I am now going to look at 2015 AZ NAEP scores again.
I will report back if I am wrong. … I will say that inadequate funding produces a lot of teacher needed situations in AZ.
Just googling, I se that charter school attendance in AZ has grown from 5% to 17% over a 20-yr period. And NEAP scores for all students, which were below average in 2009 are about average as of 2015. Why would you conclude that the increase from below-ave to ave over the most recent 6 yrs was due to school choice? When even just in 2015 (the yr AZ attained ave NEAP scores), 83% of kids attended tradl pubschs? Isn’t it more likely that pubschs are doing better? & would you attribute that improvement to the effects of school choice?
Dear bethree5, A major point I see in many areas is that choice motivates many traditional public schools to improve their performance. In some places it has been We Don’t Care We Don’t Have to as We are Only Game in Town…. Now better decision making is occurring at some traditional public school districts in various locals where charter are present.
A rising tide raises all boats.
To improve a system requires the intelligent application of relevant data. — clinging to a particular ideology may not be a recipe for improvement.
I agree that charter schools have forced change at least in Los Angeles.
DMDJr,
For me it is about practicality, & I don’t find the remarks about ideology helpful. Pooling taxpayer $ for a public good seems to me a no-brainer, not an ideology. I also respect scholarship in data analysis. “A rising tide lifts all boats” is a saying that may or may not apply to to the case. Is it in fact a rising tide? Let’s look at pre-school-choice NEAP scores since ’71. We may find that AZ’s trends mirror natl trends, i.e., steady incremental rise across all groups, w/higher rates of increase in minority ethnics & low-SES. The natl rate of rise begins decreasing 2004-forward, & has flatlined in some locations– some might conclude due to the advent of school-choice pgms, or teaching-time stolen from all classrooms by the testing craze, I expect not enough info for conclusions.
If you make your curriculum so onerous that only the most “advanced” students can keep up, it’s pretty easy to get high test scores. Color me unimpressed. High test scores, and a loaded Ventra card, will get you on the Chicago El. Tell me what kind of people those kids grow up to be and maybe we’ll have something to talk about. Or, judging solely on the one family I know who send their kid their, maybe we won’t. Incidentally, just because a curriculum is onerous doesn’t mean it’s any good. In talking to the kid I just referenced, she doesn’t remember a tenth of what she’s forced to cram all year.
As for family satisfaction, what family wouldn’t be satisfied with a school that protects their little snowflake from all those kids?
Arg, I mean, of course, “send their kid there“.
“Arizona has had considerable increases in student performance on NAEP since it provided an avenue for much greater school choice.. . . . Basis is serving that niche quite well at least according to test scores and family satisfaction.”
Please provide proof of your supposed correlation between “choice” beginning and test score increases.
Not that that correlation means anything at all due to the COMPLETE INVALIDITY of the standardized test that is NAEP. So your argument of “rising” test scores supposedly correlated to “choice” as an indicator of the supposed benefits of that “choice” is bogus from the start.
So Duane are their any measures that can be considered objective? I guess NAEP and TIMSS and PISA are all horribly flawed in your estimation. Do these instruments measure anything in your opinion?
There are no objective “measures” of the teaching and learning process. And those tests measure nothing, Danaher. They are assessments, evaluations, judgements of student learning but they are neither an objective measure nor a valid assessment tool (as proven by Noel Wilson in his never rebutted/refuted 1997 treatise “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
My response on another thread holds especially true here in talking of “objective measure”
“I don’t think that the measures right now, whether they are for teachers or for schools, are very accurate.”
Those “measures”by definition can never be accurate. Why? Because there is no “measurement” being done so that it is logically impossible to sort and separate accurately leaving any rankings completely invalid.
To measure something there has to be an agreed upon standard unit of measurement with precise definition such as may be found for measuring time (standard unit of time, i.e., second), weight (standard unit of weight, i.e., lbs or kilogram) etc. . . . Without the standard unit, without an exemplar of that unit against which one can devise and calibrate a device there can be no true “measuring”.
And there isn’t any agreed upon standard unit of measure in the teaching and learning process, never has been and never will be. This is why can’t we “measure student achievement” as is proposed by all the testing organizations and most educators. Another factor is the nature of what is supposedly being measured in the standardized testing process.
Richard Phelps, a staunch standardized test proponent (he has written at least two books defending the standardized testing malpractices) in the introduction to “Correcting Fallacies About Educational and Psychological Testing” unwittingly lets the cat out of the bag with this statement:
“Physical tests, such as those conducted by engineers, can be standardized, of course [why of course of course], but in this volume , we focus on the measurement of latent (i.e., nonobservable) mental, and not physical, traits.” [my addition]
Notice how he is trying to assert by proximity that educational standardized testing and the testing done by engineers are basically the same, in other words a “truly scientific endeavor”. The same by proximity is not a good rhetorical/debating technique.
THE TESTS MEASURE NOTHING, i.e., latent non-observable mental traits, for how is it possible to “measure” the nonobservable with a non-existing measuring device that is not calibrated against a non-existing standard unit of learning?????
PURE LOGICAL INSANITY!
The basic fallacy of this is the confusing and conflating metrological (metrology is the scientific study of measurement) measuring and measuring that connotes assessing, evaluating and judging. The two meanings are not the same and confusing and conflating them is a very easy way to make it appear that standards and standardized testing are “scientific endeavors”-objective and not subjective like assessing, evaluating and judging.
Danaher, for what it is worth, standardized tests are highly correlated with family income. I think NAEP is better than state tests because it has no stakes attached.
I think TIMSS and PISA fundamentally distort the purposes of education and force all nations to compete for test scores. They are an abomination and if they were eliminated, I would open a bottle of champagne and celebrate.
https://jaypgreene.com/2017/03/02/why-arizona-charter-leaders-should-feel-confident-about-the-2017-naep/
I wouldn’t put too much stock in AZ charter scores. Their leading charter chain BASIS accepts everyone, then requires them to take and pass AP courses, and their charters have a high attrition rate. Those who are left are the smartest.
Thanks for the link Danaher. Even cherry picking COMPLETELY INVALID standardized testing results, as Greene (an avowed edudeformer at the Walton funded “School of Deform” at the U of Ark) does, means absolutely nothing. When one starts with the horse manure of using completely invalid stats from standardized tests to make a point the only outcome is more horse manure. Crap in, crap out, or if one is offended by that, garbage in garbage out.
So Greene’s arguments, being based on the falsehoods that are standardized test scores (NAEP) are specious at best. And I believe that Diane has pointed out those NAEP scores were never designed for comparing schools.
Which bring us to the unethicalness of using the results of tests designed to assess student learning for evaluating teachers, schools and/or districts. It is UNETHICAL to do so. Anyone who has taken an Assessment & Testing course is taught that to use the results of any assessment for purposes other than what the test was designed for, and these tests are all designed to supposedly assess student learning not teacher or school effectiveness, is ignorant and misguided at best (which they shouldn’t be at the levels where policy is being discussed) and more accurately UNETHICAL, plain and simple.
When, Danaher will you divorce yourself from the UNETHICAL side of this debate?
And please respond to my anyalysis of the complete onto-epistemological falsehoods that are involved in the “measuring” of student achievement. Please.
But I’d bet you cannot come up with any logically sound rebuttal. Hell, I know you can’t because there is no logical rebuttal, but hey, give it your best shot.
Duane, I certainly agree that measuring teacher performance via VAM is ridiculous. However in the AZ situation what is being shown in that state wide performance of cohorts from grade 4 to grade 8 is improving substantially over time. I will choose to believe that increase is due to better opportunities for learning provided in AZ schools in grades 5,6,7,8 than were previously offered.
Whether those increased opportunities which were taken advantage of by students is due to school choice is certainly debatable as correlation is not causation. However after seeing the change in attitude at a few public districts I’ve been associated with when charters emerged in NV. I find the causation theory likely in those cases.
Certainly a lot of what passes for “research based” and “best practice” in the field of education is hardly the result of anything even remotely “scientific”. — Research Shows (oh sure it does… but only because the research wants another grant)
Danaher,
I said nothing about VAM, other than to give it as an example of the unethicalness of using standardized test scores for something they haven’t been designed for. You come back to using the test scores (which are completely invalid a source of data due to the inherent errors and falsehoods involved in making those tests) in Arizona for something they have not been designed to do. That is not only a baseless assertion that you make but using that comparison is unethical at face value.
Again, Danaher, please rebut/refute what I have said about the “non-measuring” of student learning and the unethical aspect of using test scores as you have used them. Also I’d like to see a rebuttal/refutation of the complete invalidity of the standards and testing regime as proven by Noel Wilson (which I have linked multiple times and if you have missed my summary let me know and I’ll post it again).
I’ve been looking for a rebuttal/refutation of Wilson’s work for almost two decades now, have begged and pleaded for someone to show me anything whatsoever that would counteract his argument. I have not found nor heard of a single one, not one! Be the first, Danaher, to debunk the most important education writing of the last 50 years.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
Yet another reminder that the destruction of public education is a fully bipartisan affair.
Just talking this idea, this past weekend. They are decimating woodland areas near me to put up overpriced, cheaply made housing developments. The community doesn’t care because it means “jobs” (for a minute) and that promise of lower taxes that never seems to materialize. However, the forest is lost forever. Bottom line is that after the palms are greased and they take care of the politicians, eventually big business always wins.
DeVos’s parents are involved in funding groups that sponsor hate speeches in college campuses.
………………….
How the Right-Wing Koch and DeVos Families Are Funding Hate Speech on College Campuses Across the U.S. @alternet
By Alex Kotch / AlterNet
April 18, 2017
On March 2, eugenicist Charles Murray attempted to give a lecture at Middlebury College in Vermont, with little success. Protesters shouted him down and he was sequestered in another room to answer questions over a livestream….Labeled a white nationalist by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Murray is the author of the 1994 book The Bell Curve, in which he argues that inequalities of race, gender and income exist because white men are smarter and genetically superior to black people, Latinos, women and the poor. Numerous academics have panned the book for its faulty reasoning and unprovable points….
While co-presenting the Murray talk, the political science department did not invite Murray, nor did it contribute any funding for the event. The Middlebury student chapter of a far-right libertarian think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, asked him to speak, and AEI picked up the tab.
AEI declined to comment for this story, but other reports claim that in sponsoring Murray’s talk, the nonprofit is paying Murray’s speaker fee directly.
AEI gets most of its funding from the foundations of wealthy conservatives and a pass-through group meant to shield the identity of these very donors. Donors Capital Fund, to which conservative mega-donors such as the Koch, DeVos and Bradley families donate, is AEI’s biggest funder at nearly $23 million through 2014, according to ConservativeTransparency.org. The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a major funder of many conservative groups, is close behind, and foundations run by Charles Koch and Richard and Helen DeVos, the parents of Education Sec. Betsy DeVos, have given more than $1 million each to AEI…
http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/rightwing-billionaires-are-intentionally-funding-hate-speech-college-campuses#.WPdqD_XUSxc.gmail
$$$$$ talks and BS walks. Disgusting.
Please stop muddying the issues in California. Our Los Angeles system is broken and good charters offer alternatives to a wide range of socio-economic strata. De Vos is a disaster. But we need good charter schools in Los Angeles until real, sweeping educational reform addresses student needs instead of pacifying the political clout of UTLA. Please stop interfering with the good progress we have made. If charter schools put pressure on a failing district Marybeth we can have real reform!!!
Wendy,
Please explain how what is posted is “muddying the issues”.
TIA,
Duane
Diane keeps overgeneralizing all charters/Trump/De Vos as the enemy. We have been working hard to improve Los Angeles schools at least since the 70s when my kids were little. Not for profit charters in the greaterLA area have not only provided good options but have begun to catalyze change in an entrenched system of poor education practices. Let’s agree to fight Devos and forprofit school but let California and LA work out their issues without bias!
Wendy,
Why do the California charter schools fight accountability and transparency?
Why should they get public schools without complying with state laws?
They don’t. When I was a principal of a charter we had oversight by both WASC accreditation and our district (LAUSD) charter division. In addition,CCSA supports accountability. In fact, CCSA releases more accountability data than anyone and releases a list of charters it recommends for non-renewal every year.
http://www.ccsa.org/blog/2016/11/ccsa-calls-for-non-renewal-of-6-chronically-underperforming-charter-schools.html
It only opposes bills that are onerous and designed to harm charters which seems to be the view of our current board of education as it aligns with UTLA. Let’s make the conversation about kids and school quality, not alignment of factions. And let’s make it clear that DeVos’s idea of charters is not ours..
CCSA fights any accoubtabilityfor charters
I guess we have conflicting information about the accountability question. The link I provided displayed the accountability process for CCSA. What is your problem with that? And how are district “public” schools held accountable? And for what? I can tell you I have seen awful things in LAUSD public schools in my 40years as an educator. I have seen good things too. The size of the district limits the ability of leaders to be attuned to issues in the trenches.
CCSA defeats every legislation that requires charter accountability or transparency
Why?
Thanks for the response, Wendy! I’ve generally found that most do not respond to my inquiries and never come back to discuss the issue at hand. I appreciate your comments.
Duane, you are welcome. Friendly sharing of information!
Wendy,
The more charter schools, the weaker the public schools. The self-centeredness of the charter industry know no bounds. Every student who enters a charter takes money away from public schools. Most children are harmed so a few can attend charters, some of which are failures
This is an entrenched perspective. In LA waste is rampant. School’s are failing. Charter schools for the most part have raised the bar and inspired some but not enough reform. Let’s not paint the whole system a uniform color!
Charter schools in LA are the sport of billionaires.
Diane, you stated “The more charter schools, the weaker the public schools. The self-centeredness of the charter industry know no bounds.” This a very broad statement. Is there data supporting your claim of “The more charter schools, the weaker the public schools.”
I have definitely seen a downward pressure on teaching salaries brought on by Charters. In WA State we have very few charters and all are required by law to pay the teachers according to placement on the state salary schedule at a minimum but can pay more.
WA state certainly greased the skids for the TfA invasion in Seattle Schools but that disaster has apparently ended at least for Seattle. There was no teacher shortage in Seattle but some politicians and the UW College of Ed Dean (ex TfA guy) thought TfA wonders would be an improvement over regular certificated continuing teaching staff.
Having taught in six western states including a charter in inner city LA and a regular public school near Long Beach, I have a hard time buying that in every case charters make public schools weaker.
A large factor in the often substandard student performance in Math is poor administrative decision-making. It would be great if charters offered a different and better choice for students, but often the charter uses the same failing pegagogy and materials as the nearby public school.
Every dollar to a charteris taken away from a public school, which enroll the majority of students.
What is the value of a dual school system?
In response to Diane’s comment asking the value of a dual system, one must understand the intricacies of public education. In the 80’s there were alternative schools in LA’s public schools. When the SB that protected them timed out, those schools became magnet schools among the many other magnet school designed to desegregate a huge district with pockets of segregated communities. Those school are public schools and pull students from neighborhood schools.
When charter schools came in, LA adopted at least one alternative school to make it both a magnet and a charter school. This school pulls children out of their neighborhoods.
As I have stated before, the whole Pacific Palisades area is a charter school “pod” with 5 elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school. Those schools are public schools and charter schools.
Apparently LAUSD at one point felt that the reforms brought by the charter schools were of value. Many of the free-standing ones (not run by an overarching organization) also bring more diversity into the schools than might be found in discrete neighborhoods.
Admittedly, the newer charter schools exemplify a range of models, some less transparent than others, and some less successful than others.
In the past few years, the district has opened pilot schools, also drawing from neighborhood schools.
The question about “value of a dual system” Implies that there is not value in diverse learning models, and vastly oversimplifies the many kinds of school models available to parents at least in the Los Angeles area.
Wendy, Like LA at one time Seattle had a significant variety of option schools, then many were eliminated and the SPS became a lot more one size fits all and attend your local school was really pushed. This had the effect of making white schools a bit whiter and wealthy schools a bit wealthier. To the SPS’s credit some Low Income – less white schools were given extra resources which included lower class sizes. At this time there are 2 middle schools with 70% to 80% poverty that are the top performing middle schools in math for Low Income students out of 10…. 6,7,8 middle schools. This certainly in no way “eliminated” the opportunity gaps as the best performing of the Low Income schools was miles behind the district average for white students.======WA Legislature begins an extra session on Monday to deal with the Supreme Court order to stop violating state constitution by failing to fund schools adequately and thus violating the constitutional rights of k-12 students. So now with 2018 coming the legislature needs to deal with the 2012 court decision or NOT. It has been NOT and the legislature has been fined by the court for the last two-years (just a big so what)
Not sure what the fate of WA schools has in the overall conversation. My point is that our extreme blasting of charter schools helps no one, least of all kids. Closing down bad charter schools is important. I might point out that in California at least, public school parents have found a way to funnel money into white schools to improve them. Booster clubs in higher socio-economic neighborhoods collect money and fundraise to create art, music, and other special programs, and add extra teachers to lower the teacher/student ratio for instruction. Parents will do what they can to improve schools when a district has fallen so far behind. Some of our best schools for low income children or facilitating integration are charter schools. To remove this venue for school reform is short sighted and not a good response for kids. It’s tragic that our national government is such a “whack a mole” of horrific policies. We have our hands full fighting so many things. Let’s not make enemies of people who can work together to fight this horrible reality.
Diane,
When the dollars disappear from the public school so does the child. Less dollars and fewer students to educate. In rural White Pine County at the Elementary school in Ely, the district had little interest in improving a school that needed a lot of improvement. When parents started and supported a Charter School not much happened until significant numbers of students began attending the charter. Now the district is beginning to see the need for change.
I am looking at the failure of several public schools to take an interest in providing an optimal learning opportunity for each child. I have observed very little that can be done to “fix” poor administrative decisions in the good ol’ boy system of education. But in some situations charters have afforded students a better situation by improving the public schools as well as an option for students.
I certainly agree that if charters are without regulation the overall effect can be harmful but that is not the case in every situation.
Sorry but I disagree with your position.
DMDJr, re: what is evidence that dollars taken by charters weaken publics? There are various ways this is true, but the most immediate impact is financial, & Chiara has detailed Ohio examples in posts to other threads. Moody’s seems to agree: last Fall they warned Boston & 2 other MA cities that if charter-expansion Prop No 2 passed, they would likely lower the bond rating of those 3 cities.
MA Prop No 2 was defeated 62.1-37.9%.
Re: charter schools defunding other public schools
From what I understand Massachusetts has good public schools. Their Prop 2 did not pass. Moody’s rates value, and a population that endorses their public schools as MA did by rejecting additional charters must have a high value public school system.
But what about low quality public school systems? Unless people “vote with their feet” as DeVos stupidly misstated, how will citizens communicate their displeasure for school districts that are entrenched in over-bloated budgets, board members who are influenced by back-handed deals, union dictates, and apathetic administrators? What would you all say is the democratic vehicle for this long- standing situation in Los Angeles where parents of all socio-economic levels are finding options for their children?
Wendy,
Not being in the trenches– & also, being on the old side 😉 — I tend to think moren terms of the overall system. The problems you cite can & do apply to many aspects of govt. They are problems of power & influence-peddling, corruption, inequity. Lack of political will. The tools of democracy are there for the using: legislation, the courts, elections, transparency of public budgets/ spending. Activism.
Charters have always struck me as a losing proposition. They are like placing small bandaids randomly on a wound. Economically, the public ed system, when combined w/ the charter movement, remind me of, say, retail stores, that is, they mirror larger economic issues. A wealthy town is the only environment that can successfully support both a good anchor dept store and a bunch of pricey boutiques.
Dear Wendy,
Thanks for the good discussion, BTW.
It’s a good point that MA pubsch sys has long been successful, so was the 2-1 ‘No’ vote more simply a vote of confidence, pushing back against pro-charter govr backed by private interests. But that goes hand-in-hand w/the money question. This article notes that “almost all of the fiercest Question 2 opponents were cities and towns whose public schools are losing money to charter schools,’ and details the fiscal struggles that four cities [which voted 70-76% against] are having in supporting their 2-tier sch sys. http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/11/some_of_the_fiercest_question.html
The Moody’s warning is also strictly financial. Not relevant whether MA voters like/ support their publics. They singled out Boston & 3 other cities (forgot to include Fall River in my prev reply) which would become less able to support them– less likely to be able to pay back bonds– under the proposed cap-lift.
What I really admire about MA is, they got enough signatures to put the question to a referendum, throwing it into a heated fray of close examination/ analysis by the public. MA & CA are among the 1/2 of all states that can initiate ballot Q’s by citizen petition. Seems a great democratic tool & I wish we had it in NJ.
Dear bethree5,
I’m enjoying this discussion about charters and appreciate the dialogue. It’s a complex issue. Buoying me are two things: the overwhelming dissatisfaction with the LAUSD (Los Angeles) by communities of all distinctions, and the overwhelming success of some wonderful charter schools that I am personally aware of and connected to.
I can’t say the charter world does not have it’s down sides; I was a principal at a new charter school but left when I could see the predictable consequences of the politics of the situation as it was run by a parent board. We just had different ideas about what would be good for kids and my fears were made real as the school progressed. But the people learned from their mistakes and went on to begin some excellent new schools, all of them with a model for diversity of all kinds. One school was begun because I would not allow a founding parent to skip over kids who had been rightfully given seats at the school so her underage kindergarteners would have spots. I stand by my decision and she went on to start three amazing schools to the benefit of many kids in the district.
I actually taught in public schools for 10 years in Los Angeles. Research shows that the key component of teacher satisfaction is the feeling of efficacy, often thwarted by district policies, administrative apathy, and union interference.
I believe that despite the fact that only some children benefit from the charters, LAUSD has begun some reform efforts in response so there have been benefits in a wider scale. Perhaps LA is its own situation.
There are many voices in this current educational situation. Neighborhood public schools carry baggage as do charters .
I don’t think anyone has clear answers about all of this and I encourage us to keep open minds as we all fight the horrors of this round of politics.
Wendy,
As principal would you have allowed the public to view “the books”, not school books, but all of the administrative and financial books?
It would have been up to my Board, but I would have had nothing to hide. I actually believe that part of the discussion should be to unify charter and other public school oversight in some way. Our other public schools would benefit from more oversight.
“It would have been up to my Board”. I can say with 100% surety that the answer would be a resounding no. I understand your position and hands being tied.
But that is where the difference between what a public school/district and a charter really stands out in terms of accountability. Public schools have to open their books to all who ask whereas charters do not and, again, have argued in the courts to not open their books. Where is the accountability in that?
So let’s pressure CCSA to conform to more common public policies. That is the logical next step. Our schools are horrible in many cases. People should love public schools. That is the problem that we are not addressing. Money is important but leadership is the key variable.
“People should love public schools.”
Exactly!!
And for the most part they do. Now my experience is in suburban/rural schools so my perspective may be “limited” as I don’t know very much about people’s perceptions in urban schools. So the perception in LA may be quite different that mine.
People from all socio-economic and geographic areas hate most LA public schools. Some are good, no contest. We have a mini-charter school district in LAUSD sanctioned by the district. Those are good schools. Our district is so big and cumbersome that principals are apathetic despite reform opportunities within the district. They know if they hand in they will get a cushy administrative job out of a school site. Bloated budget that could be used for kids. Our charters are some of our best public schools. And some of our worst.
I have always held that education is not scale-able. Large districts and overreaching oversight policies hamper the lives of kids. Charters are a model that can streamline and reform the stagnation of districts like LAUSD.
Wendy, charter schools are not public schools. When charter operators in Los Angeles misappropriated money from their school, they said at trial they were not subject to state law because they were not a public school. CCSA entered an amicus brief saying that charter schools are private corporations, not public schools. I agree.
I have a feeling that many of your concerns with education are the same as those of us here and at NPE.
Yes. But I am concerned about the large scale opposition to charters. We all serve public school children. In LA children attend private schools (highly expensive) or one of a wide array of choices offered by the district. Charters are among the choices. We need to see that reality just as we see magnet and pilot schools as part of the district. School site leadership is very important for a high quality education. Our small school districts do not need charter schools as they can be sensitive to the needs of their schools. YOu know the first charter schools were a progressive initiative by the unions, right?.
Yes, well aware of the beginnings of the charter school phenomena. Whether it was a progressive, liberal or conservative idea means nothing to me. The main originator Shanker rejected the way the charters were operated only a few years after he proposed them.
Again I have no problems with the concept of charters. My problem lies in the public monies going to a fiscally non-accountable private entity. Hey if someone wants to open a private school that’s fine with me. Just do it with one’s own or backer’s monies, not my tax monies. Hey, let that vaunted free market decide whether the product will survive. (that being said completely tongue in cheek)
Wendy, Yes .. Leadership is the key variable. In mathematics the last 60 years of Math recommendations have at times been incoherent and chaotic. Until “Best Practices” are based on something other than ideological alignment, do not expect much improvement. One driver for choice is the use of different instructional materials and practices, but often the charter uses much the same as the local public school in this regard.
Duane, you wrote:
“Public schools have to open their books to all who ask whereas charters do not and, again, have argued in the courts to not open their books. Where is the accountability in that?”
It seems to me that this “opening books” situation varies by state. State legislators need to feel the heat on accountability. Given the amount of money pouring into campaigns this may require some effort to mount a campaign capable of producing increased accountability for charters.
Of course!! I even had parent evenings where I had slide shows so I could explain our budget to parents
A couple of charter school advocates today. Welcome, and please stick around for more than a day. You’ll get beat up intellectually but I always like to find out what and how you all justify destroying public education, all for the benefit of the monied few.
Come to Los Angeles. I’ll show you some amazing things!!
Would love to, thanks for the offer, but this retired Spanish teacher will struggle to get enough $$ together to come out to CA for the fall NPE Conference in Oakland (not to mention either before or after heading to Seattle to visit with my daughter). Come on up to Oakland in October and join us.
Wish I could. I could show you a great charter school in Oakland as well. I’d love to join NPE but with your current animosity to charter schools I am unable to join. Too bad. We need lots of energy to fight DeVos and the other swamp creatures.
You don’t have to be a member to attend the conference. I think you might find quite a few of the presentations that would be of interest. Again, come join us, not all are ogres-ha ha!
Thanks, Duane! Maybe I will….
Well, if I can drive from the middle of the country (Missouri), I’d hope you can drive from Southern California to Oakland-ha ha!! Although I understand the time constraints if you are still working and not retired like I am.
I am retired! I also have friends in Oakland. But I volunteer at a school and watch my grandkids. Maybe we will meet!
Congrats on being retired!
Be watching the NPE site for when the conference registration opens up for the general public-right now it is a members only limited number of spots. Not sure when it opens up for everyone else. I’ll try to find out and post it.
What’s Wendy’s defense for Gates’ incursion into higher ed “to create new institutional delivery methods” and “to implement business models for the collaborative course development and delivery”?
Doesn’t Wendy value the sacrifices made for democracy? Doesn’t she believe Thomas Picketty’s unassailable research documenting the results of wealth concentration? Is Wendy o.k. with American oligarchs spending more than $2 bil. to privatize and corporatize education? And, does she have no concern that oligarch investments in the largest seller of for-profit, schools-in-a-box are the motivation? Wendy doesn’t mind that self-anointed reformers are on record as saying they “want to blow up” university schools? Wendy’s fine with the marching orders of Gates-funded New Schools Venture Fund, “to develop diverse charter school organizations to produce different brands on a large scale”? Does Wendy have to live an outcome to understand it? Is she incapable of extrapolation into the future? Or, doesn’t she care if the U.S. is an oligarchy?
Wendy may find herself, or people she knows, saying what Africans are quoted as saying about schools-in-a-box (promoted by the World Bank to the exclusion of public education), “Don’t make money on our poor backs,”
If policies don’t serve children, and if the schools are not teaching students, what does it matter how the policies were created? I agree that for-profit schools run by oligarchs is a misuse of the model. And politically speaking I am against that kind of “school buying.” But I have also seen amazing individual schools that are the original charter school model.
For argument’s sake, how do we facilitate real school reform in a district that is falling apart. One former superintendent said, ” I hope charter schools are so successful that the district falls apart and we can design new smaller, more responsive districts.” That is a tough way to go but better than business model districts, for sure.
EdisonLearning, a for profit charter school, took over a ‘failing school’ in Gary, Indiana. Our political leaders are heavy into believing that charters and vouchers are the way to go.
Here is what one former teacher for EdisonLearning wrote:
“Practices in instruction were outdated.”
Former Employee – Teacher in Gary, IN
I worked at EdisonLearning full-time (Less than a year)
Pros
Nice group of people to work with who have good intentions. Classroom set of computers in most rooms.
Cons
Resistance to change, professional growth, and new teaching strategies. Reliance on Computer based instruction with a System that breaks down frequently leaving students and staff frustrated. Clueless strategies on how to work with special education students. Teaching instructed from pedestals using an old fashion authoritative model on students at risk.
Advice to Management
Listen to staff concerns and input.
I agree that for profit business run charters are a dangerous model. But fear of the evil empire (and it is evil) should not remove the honest efforts of those who are helping kids in an otherwise dismal educational arena. We need to see the whole picture. Things are often more complex than they seem. We should find a way to work together. I agree we are fighting a monster. The monster is not me.
Sent from my iPhone
>
The clueless- thinking they control a battle with pretty words and concepts against mercenaries, tanks, drones and bombs.
And, that folks, is how America’s most important common good gets turned over to the oligarchs.
Re Diane’s comment: “Charter schools in LA are the sport of billionaires.”–Yes, Eli Broad and others have that stigma. Come to LA and I’ll show you schools that are the blood sweat and tears of educators and parents who wanted a better option than the one offered by LAUSD.
We need to shift the conversation from stereotypes and bogeymen and draw a realistic picture of a new wave of schools that can provide a model of success for students. It’s tragic that the new national agenda paints charters and a masquerade for destroying public schools. We feel that our charter schools are brave, new public schools, creatively focused and out from under the heavy foot of a cumbersome district and its policies.
Every dollar your Charter School gets is taken away from public schools.
Charter schools are not public schools.
The CCSA says in court papers that they are not state actors. Pubic schools are state actors.
“We feel that our charter schools are brave, new public schools. . .”
And that is just it. Your “feeling” that the charters are new “public schools” does not hold true for the vast majority of charter schools (except the few that are authorized and controlled by a local school board). Charter schools have consistently argued both in the courts and before the NLRB that they are private entities. The vast majority of charters whether for profit or not are private schools.
Now, is there anything inherently wrong with a private school? No! Hell I went through K-12 Catholic education, but it was by no means a public school. I just ask that you understand that the vast majority of charters are not public schools. They are private entities taking public monies, but that does not give them the right (nor do they contend in court) to declare, as you have done, that they are public schools.
“Heavy foot”, that’s rich given the money Gates, Broad, Walton heirs and DFER are throwing around.
The policies Wendy denigrates evolved from a democratic process.
Washington State Charter schools RCW 28A.710
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A.710&full=true#28A.710.030