Archives for the month of: May, 2017
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Hawaii: Why Import Corporate Reformers from the Mainland?

By dianeravitch
May 15, 2017 //
15

Andy Jones’s a high school teacher in Hawaii. He writes here with profound dismay about the search for a new superintendent for the schools of Hawaii.

He was not sorry to see the current superintendent go. She was an avid supporter of test-based accountability and data-data-data.

“This week we learned that the new superintendent will likely be one of two products of the current educational Big Box: a nationwide collection of individuals with graduate degrees from institutions (many of them recent startups) that support a transformation of public education according to post-traditional business models – what critics refer to as the “corporate educational reform movement.

“This model – one to which Matayoshi adhered and which was largely responsible for facilitating the national failure that was No Child Left Behind (NCLB) – is founded on the idea that, where public education is “broken,” it can be “fixed” through methods that emphasize top-down standardization and systemic compliance.

“That’s precisely the model the state is doing its best to move away from – a desire encapsulated in the Blueprint for Public Education drafted by Governor Ige’s ESSA Task Force, as well as in the Hawaii State Teacher Association’s Schools Our Keiki Deserve report.

“A quick Google search on the proposed candidates leaves little room for optimism that either candidate is prepared or likely to jump start Hawaii schools out of their post-NCLB limbo and into the brighter, more wholesome future envisioned by HSTA and the Governor’s Task Force.”

Jones finds reasons to avoid both candidates when he googles. Both have red flags in their history.

He adds:

“The local educational community has requested candidates with deep teaching experience, extensive personal knowledge of Hawaii and its public school system, a collaborative mindset, and a commitment to teacher empowerment. The board’s selections demonstrate failure to acknowledge the input they solicited on their own survey.

“It may seem hyperbolic to ask for some sort of an explicit mandate for board members to do what is right. But perhaps because board members are appointed rather than elected, they don’t appear to be particularly concerned about holding themselves accountable to community opinion.

“Through the various missteps reported in the media over the past months, it has become clear that an appointed Board is not serving the interests of Hawaii schools and the children they serve.”

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Hawaii, Testing

William Mathis on the Illusory Graduation Rate of Students in D.C. Voucher Schools

By dianeravitch
May 15, 2017 //
36

Trump recently told a group of students attending voucher schools in D.C. that they were very lucky because the graduation rate of the voucher program was 98%. That was far more than the evaluation of the program, which claimed a rate of 82%. But when I re-read the final evaluation report on the program, I couldn’t understand how the evaluators arrived at 82%. Newspaper accounts regularly say that the D.C. voucher program had no effect on test scores but a higher graduation rate. But was it true? What was the attrition rate? How did the evaluators arrive at 82%?

So I asked William Mathis of the National Education Policy Center to explain what was behind the numbers. He very kindly untangled the data for me and wrote the following:


Donald Trump’s Phantom 98% Voucher Graduation Rate

William J. Mathis

​Education secretary Betsy DeVos joined Donald Trump at the White House to pitch school vouchers touting the “98% graduation rate” from the District of Columbia program. Now, a 98% graduation rate would be a superlative figure for any school but coming out of urban Washington, this would be nothing short of phenomenal. Some might claim divine intervention would be required.​​

Here’s why: For the baseline year of 2010, the federal government’s official, national, on-time graduation rate reached an “all-time high” of 80%. When the District of Columbia’s 2010 graduation rate was compared to the 50 states, it came in dead-last with 59%. It maintains the dubious last-place ranking. Thus, to reach 98%, the DC voucher program would have to leap over all 50 states including top-scoring Iowa (88%). Such a miraculous ascent rightly raises a skeptical eye.

To sort this out, inquiring minds would first go to the source of the numbers. The president’s remarks were based on a 2010 University of Arkansas study of Washington DC which estimated the actual graduation rate of 70% for traditional public schools and 82% for voucher schools. This would be pretty good given DC’s official rate of 59% for that year. But this is a long way from Trump’s imaginative 98%.

​So what’s the difference between the researchers’ rate and the real rate? The University of Arkansas’ numbers were based on a telephone survey of parents which had a response rate of only 63% despite some aggressive follow-up. For students who had not yet graduated, they asked the parents to forecast whether their student would, in fact, graduate. Since the control group had a response rate similar to the voucher students, the researchers concluded they could compare the groups. But this quickly runs into problems. The first of which is the low response rate to the telephone survey. It is reasonable to infer that respondents would differ from non-respondents. The second problem is relying on the parents’ forecast that their child would graduate rather than using the actual school district count of drop-outs and non-graduates. These errors would result in inflated numbers.​

​The third problem is selection effects. That is, the parents who elected to participate in the voucher program are parents who are more likely to be involved and motivated to advance their children’s education. As is clearly known, parental involvement is a key to educational success. Parents must register for the program and the on-line application program requires the parent to establish an account with email address and password. Then, social security numbers, date of birth, proof of income, proof of DC residence and tax ID numbers are required. This suggests a multitude of selection problems including non-computer literate parents, computer availability, privacy protection and any number of other reasons that people may not want to be in a government data base.

​Mystifying to the reader, only 351 out of 1293 students used their voucher for all years (27%). The remaining 73% dropped out of the program but whether they graduated is unclear. We just don’t know what happened to these students.
Trump and DeVos failed to mention that this same study showed test scores for the voucher students remained flat. They also overlooked a newer DC study with even less positive findings. In this federally sponsored 2017 study, test scores dropped for both experimental and control groups. But voucher program students dropped more than the traditional students in both reading and mathematics. Further, 82% of the voucher group changed schools after the first year. All in all, there are no transcendent intercessions here. It’s just a weak design garnished with exaggeration.

While Trump argues for billions in new tax breaks for voucher schemes, there is no evidence that they are an effective reform strategy. To the contrary, the segregative effects could be quite harmful. Large-scale voucher studies in Louisiana, Indiana and Ohio also show negative numbers. So in light of these facts, what did the federal government do? They prohibited further studies of the program and called for greater federal support of voucher programs.

Categories District of Columbia, Education Reform, Graduation rates, Vouchers

Bernie Endorses Steve Zimmer and Imelda Padilla

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2017 //
11

The critical runoff election for school board in Los Angeles is Tuesday May 16.

There are two crucial races. One is Steve Zimmer Vs. Nick Melvoin. Melvoin has received millions from leaders of the charter industry, such as Eli Broad, Alice Walton, Michael Bloomberg, and Reed Hastings. He is the beneficiary of millions from people who do not live in Los Angeles.

The other is Imelda Padilla vs. Kelly Fitzpatrick Nonez. Nonez is a charter school teacher.

Steve Zimmer has been endorsed by Eric Garcetti, the Mayor of Los Angeles, and other current city officials.

He has also received the endorsement of Senator Bernie Sanders.

If you live in one of their districts in Los Angeles, please vote on Tuesday. The future of public education in Los Angeles depends on your vote.

Vote for Steve Zimmer.

Vote for Imelda Padilla.

Save public education!

CORRECTEDBernieFB050517-(1) (1)

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Los Angeles, Privatization

Texas: Republicans in State Senate Try Again to Push Through a Voucher Bill

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2017 //
19

You know about the camel’s nose under the tent? That’s the game that Texas Republicans are playing in an effort to establish a foothold for vouchers. They have copied this tactic from other states. It goes like this: We don’t want vouchers for everyone; we want them just for this very small, very needy, very deserving group of children. If they get that bill passed, within a year or two, another group is added, then another, then another, until vouchers are available for everyone.

Just weeks ago, the Texas House of Representatives, firmly in the hands of Republicans, defeated the Senate’s voucher bill. It was widely assumed that vouchers were dead for this year. But, no, Senate Republicans added a voucher program only for children with disabilities to an important school finance proposal. Its advocates choose to ignore the fact that children with disabilities are protected by federal law in public schools, but not in private schools. They also ignore the fact that private schools for children with disabilities are far more expensive than the voucher they will offer.

The Senate’s version of the bill does not not yet have a legislative fiscal note. The Center for Public Policy Priorities estimates that it could mean about $8,300 for students to use with about $450 going back to the district.

With no income qualification cutoffs attached, the group estimates that Texas schools could lose about $37 million annually after the first year of ESAs if just 1 percent of eligible students used them.

Supporters of public education were happy about the school finance proposal, but they had to backtrack on their support when they saw that the Senate had added vouchers to the bill. For the public school supporters, this is a poison pill. Given the strong opposition to vouchers in the House, there is a good chance that the Senate voucher provision will not survive.

The members of the House must decide if they want the camel’s nose to enter the tent, knowing what will come next.

Categories Education Industry, Funding, Privatization, Special Education, Texas, Vouchers

California: Charter School Will Close Because of Founder’s Audacious Misuse of School Funds

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2017 //
8

The California State Board of Education accepted its staff recommendation and voted not to renew the Oxford Preparatory Academy charter school in Chino. The school will close June 30.

Parents defended the school, and one member of the board made a last-ditch plea for the school but he was outvoted.

“But board members grappled over the fate of the high-performing school that might be fatally encumbered with unknown debts accrued by its ousted founder, who is under investigation by district attorneys in two counties for alleged fraud.

“Did the school do wrong, or did an individual do wrong?” asked state school board member Bruce Holaday. “I’m still wrestling with that.

“Holaday offered a motion to approve the school’s appeal, but with a long list of new oversight requirements. The motion died, with a 4-6 vote. No other board members offered another motion, and 14 months after Chino Valley Unified staff first publicly raised questions about the financial health of the school, Oxford Preparatory Academy was out of options…”

“California Department of Education staff recommended that the state school board deny Oxford’s appeal, based on what Charter Schools Division Director Cindy S. Chan called “unrealistic” recovery plans.

“This audit report is horrific,” Chan said of a 2016 report from the state’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, made up of financial staff from districts across the state. The audit accused OPA founder Sue Roche of “laundering” money through Yorba Linda-based Edlighten Learning Solutions, a company she and her family ran.

“An open investigation by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office also factored into the department’s recommendation to deny the appeal, Chan said.

“We are skeptical that any corrective action addressing all of the issues could be put in place” in time for the new school year, she said. “It looks like they’ve made efforts, but it’s just too short of a time.”

“Founded in 2010 by former Chino Valley Unified principal Roche, the school initially had a warm relationship with the district. Superintendent Wayne Joseph urged the school board to approve its initial charter and its first charter renewal request.

“That changed last year, when district officials expressed doubt about Roche setting up for-profit companies to provide services to OPA, using public school tax dollars for private profit.

“An audit commissioned by the school showed Edlighten still controls $900,000 in OPA funds, according to Joseph.

“In part, we included this list of items to follow up on, for law enforcement,” Michael Fine, chief administrative officer of FCMAT, told the state school board Thursday. “We don’t know that fraud has occurred. We believe there’s sufficient evidence that there may have been.”

“Among that evidence is a letter to the Internal Revenue Service, in which OPA reportedly characterized the company as being an integral part of the school. But two months later, to the district and FCMAT, OPA officials “disputed that they were one and the same and that (Edlighten) held assets,” Fine said.”

Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, Privatization

Will the Trump-DeVos Alliance Win Control of Los Angeles Public Schools?

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2017 //
13

“In the Public Interest,” an organization that keeps track of privatization of the public sector, points out that Trump and DeVos have a lot riding on the outcome of the school board election in Los Angeles on May 16.

Their allies have invested millions of dollars in gaining control of the school board so they can turn students and schools over to private hands.

If they can defeat Steve Zimmer and Irma Padilla in run-offs, they will be able to divert public funding to charter entrepreneurs and corporate charter chains. They will squash democratic control of public schools. They will send tax dollars to corporate entities that are neither accountable nor transparent. They will widen the reach of an unregulated industry that has been marred by scandal, theft, fraud, misappropriation of funds, and self-dealing.

Citizens of Los Angeles. Stand up for democracy and public education! Vote for Steve Zimmer and Imelda Padilla!

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Fraud, Los Angeles, Privatization

Happy Mother’s Day to All the Moms Who Read This!

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2017 //
21

Happy Mother’s Day to all you Moms out there!

I hope you enjoy the day and have the chance to see your child or children.

I had three sons. One died of leukemia at the age of two.

My sons are my treasure.

Though I must admit that I am sorry that I did not have a daughter.

My two sons each have two sons. They add to my treasure.

Enjoy your day!

Categories Personal

Peter Dreier: Who Are the Corporate Plutocrats Trying to Defeat Steve Zimmer in Los Angeles?

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2017 //
1

Peter Dreier, professor of political science at Occidental College in Los Angeles, warns that a cabal of billionaires are trying to defeat Steve Zimmer in order to take control of the public schools and privatize them. The vote on May 16 is in the national spotlight.

Can a handful of billionaires buy control of the nation’s second largest school district?

Before naming names, Dreier writes:

Some of America’s most powerful corporate plutocrats want to take over the Los Angeles school system but Steve Zimmer, a former teacher and feisty school board member, is in their way. So they’ve hired Nick Melvoin to get rid of him. No, he’s not a hired assassin like the kind on “The Sopranos.” He’s a lawyer who the billionaires picked to defeat Zimmer.

The so-called “Independent” campaign for Melvoin — funded by big oil, big tobacco, Walmart, Enron, and other out-of-town corporations and billionaires — has included astonishingly ugly, deceptive, and false attack ads against Zimmer.

This morning (Friday) the Los Angeles Times reported that “Outside spending for Melvoin (and against Zimmer) has surpassed $4.65 million.” Why? Because he doesn’t agree with the corporatization of our public schools. Some of their donations have gone directly to Melvoin’s campaign, but much of it has been funneled through a corporate front group called the California Charter School Association.

To try to hoodwink voters, the billionaires invented another front group with the same initials as the well-respected Parent Teacher Association, but they are very different organizations. They called it the “Parent Teacher Alliance.” Pretty clever, huh? But this is not the real PTA, which does not get involved with elections. In fact, the real PTA has demanded that this special interest PAC change their name and called the billionaires’ campaign Zimmer “misleading,” “deceptive practices,” and “false advertising.”

These out-of-town billionaire-funded groups can pay for everything from phone-banks, to mailers, to television ads. Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez described the billionaires’ campaign to defeat Zimmer, which includes sending mails filled with outrageous lies about Zimmer, as “gutter politics.”

As a result, the race for the District 4 seat — which stretches from the Westside to the West San Fernando Valley — is ground zero in the battle over the corporate take-over of public education. The outcome of next Tuesday’s (May 16) election has national implications in terms of the billionaires’ battle to reconstruct public education in the corporate mold.

The contest between Melvoin and Zimmer is simple. Who should run our schools? Who knows what’s best for students? Out-of-town billionaires or parents, teachers, and community residents?

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Democracy, Los Angeles, Privatization

Good News: Vergara-Copycat Lawsuit Tossed Out by Judge in New Jersey

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2017 //
11

A judge in New Jersey threw out a lawsuit intended to remove teachers’ seniority rights. This is the third loss for the corporate reformer groups that have tried to use the courts to strip away teachers’ job security. The “reformers” blame teachers and unions for low test scores while ignoring overwhelming evidence that poverty is the proximate cause of low scores.

The first was the Vergara lawsuit in California, where a group called “Students Matter,” founded by a Silicon Valley billionaire, claimed that teacher tenure (due process of law) denied poor children equal opportunity. The plaintiffs won in the lowest court. They lost on appeal. And they lost again when they appealed to the states’ highest court.

A group found by former TV personality Campbell Brown called the Partnership for Educational Justice filed copycat suits in other states. One was tossed by a lower court.

Earlier this month, a judge in New Jersey dismissed a legal challenge to teacher seniority rules.

Rachel Cohen of The American Prospect reports on the corporate reformers’ latest defeat in court:

“Another legal effort to weaken teacher job protections through the courts has been dismissed, this time in the Garden State. On Wednesday afternoon, a New Jersey Superior Court judge tossed the latest case, ruling that the plaintiffs—six parents from Newark Public Schools—failed to prove that seniority-based layoffs harmed their students.

“Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ), a national education reform group that aims to challenge teacher job protections across the country, funded the New Jersey lawsuit. Originally filed in November, the case marked the third time PEJ has gone after tenure provisions. Their first case filed in New York in 2014, is currently before the state Supreme Court. In October, a Minnesota district judge dismissed PEJ’s second suit, filed there in 2016. That case has since been appealed.”

Campbell Brown’s news site, The 74, reported the outcome of the case.

“A New Jersey judge swiftly dismissed a lawsuit Wednesday that challenged state rules requiring school districts to base teacher layoffs on seniority regardless of performance in the classroom.
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mary C. Jacobson told a Trenton courtroom that the plaintiffs had failed to establish how seniority-based layoff rules known as “last in, first out” were harming their children.

“I don’t see any link other than speculation and conjecture between the LIFO statute and the denial of a thorough and efficient education to these 12 children,” Jacobson said.

“The lawsuit, HG v. Harrington, was filed in November on behalf of a dozen Newark students, claiming that “last in, first out” mandates governing teacher layoffs violate their right to a “thorough and efficient” and “equal” education system under the state Constitution.

“The complaint was sponsored by The Partnership for Educational Justice, a national education reform nonprofit founded by 74 co-founder Campbell Brown. Named defendants include the New Jersey State Board of Education and Newark Public School District.

“The American Federation of Teachers and the New Jersey Education Association, considered “intervening” defendants in the case, filed the motion to dismiss.”

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, New Jersey, Newark, Teacher Tenure, Teachers

Weaponized Philanthropy: A Report on the Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee

By dianeravitch
May 14, 2017 //
16

What do you know about the Lynne and Harry Bradley Foundation? Likely, not much. While Gates, Broad, and Walton go public with their eagerness to privatize public schools, Bradley has the same goals but stays under the media radar.

The Center for Media and Democracy now reveals what everyone needs to know about the Bradley Foundation.

It has more assets than the Koch family foundations. It was the driving force behind the voucher movement in Wisconsin. It funds anti-union organizations. For a 501(c)3 charity, the Bradley Foundation is deeply involved in partisan activities.

The report says (the links are on the site):

“Documents examined by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) expose a national effort funded by the Milwaukee-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation to assess and expand right-wing “infrastructure” to influence policies and politicians in statehouses nationwide.

“The documents were made public in October 2016 on two Twitter accounts that cyber security analysts have linked to one of the Russian hackers alleged to have breached the Democratic National Committee. The Bradley Foundation confirmed in a statement that the hack had taken place and was reported to the FBI. More information about how the Bradley files became public is available here.

“The documents open a window to the behind-the-scenes workings of one of America’s largest right-wing foundations. With $835 million in assets as of June 2016, the Bradley Foundation is as large as the three Koch family foundations combined, yet receives much less attention as a significant funder of the right.

“CMD has examined thousands of these documents, including Bradley board documents between 2013-2016. The documents indicate that Bradley has a new stream of funding to build this “conservative infrastructure” and is using a metric to assess the strength and depth of that infrastructure in individual states — including “receptive” politicians, right-wing “think tanks,” symbiotic “grassroots” groups, friendly media, litigation centers, and opposition research — to guide Bradley’s strategic funding initiatives.

“Bradley ranks states into four “tiers” of investment opportunities and prioritizes funding the top tier states. A re-creation of Bradley’s master chart listing all U.S. states and scoring their infrastructure needs can be found here and below.

“The documents also reveal that Bradley is bankrolling groups across the nation that are working to defund and dismantle unions. The political nature of this attack is underscored by Bradley grantees who boast in major newspapers and in Bradley-funded publications like the Daily Signal that the evisceration of public and private sector unions in states like Wisconsin and Michigan was successful in turning blue states red in the last presidential election cycle…”

“The documents reveal that a key Bradley partner in this effort is the discredited Berman and Co. public relations firm and the many front groups it has spawned. Berman and Co. is run by Richard Berman, an aggressive propagator of industry spin and disinformation, profiled by “60 Minutes” as a “hired gun” for corporate America. Berman is best known for propping up propagandistic websites and launching public relations and social media campaigns to smear non-profit environmental, worker rights, consumer, and animal welfare organizations. The Center for Media and Democracy has specifically been targeted by Berman over the years.

“Representing clients in the restaurant industry, Berman has long campaigned against any rise in the minimum wage or tipped minimum wage, which has stood at $2.13 for 30 years. He has battled efforts at the state and federal level that make joining a union easier, has attacked organized workers and their leaders, and has been a primary opponent of labor-backed campaigns to raise the minimum wage.

“The documents reveal that Bradley is funding a new Berman project called the “Interstate Policy Alliance” to target its strategic infrastructure investments, as a “discrete channel” for cookie-cutter reports for member groups to publish to “maximize credibility,” and to train Bradley-funded groups in “crisis communication” and opposition research. Bradley cites the case of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which was “caught flatfooted,” the documents say, after the Center for Media and Democracy published ALEC’s secret library of “model bills” — voted on behind closed doors with corporate lobbyists — and launched ALECexposed.org in 2011.

“The documents show that Bradley has funded ALEC to aid with “proactive reputation management,” and the “larger plan” includes “aggressive opposition research.” Bradley wants Berman to develop an “off-the-shelf public-relations strategy” for “conservative outfits caught in the media crosshairs.” The key to success, the documents say, is “well sourced opposition research already prepared and ready to deploy” against opponents (Center for Consumer Freedom, Grant Proposal Record, 8/21/12).

“Berman engages in aggressive PR campaigns attacking teachers unions, a significant opponent of Bradley’s long-term agenda to advance taxpayer vouchers for private and religious schools, while other Bradley-funded institutions are funded to “defund teachers unions and achieve real education reform” (Barder Fund, 8/18/15). Bradley is so anxious to silence the organized voice of public school teachers it has pumped $1.77 million into a substitute, the Association of American Educators Foundation. “The NEA and AFT have already been substantially weakened by Wisconsin Act 10. AAE thinks it is well-positioned to help further weaken the unions and their political goals,” say the documents (AAEF, Grant Proposal Record, 8/19/2014).

“While I have not yet seen all of the documents, this appears to be more evidence that a few powerful private foundations are weaponizing philanthropy for their own private political purposes. The government gives charitable foundations tax breaks in exchange for furthering the public good. Instead, it sounds as if the Bradley Foundation has been furthering the good of its own political agenda. It really begs some serious legal questions,” said author Jane Mayer.”

Berman has run anti-teachers union campaigns in New York, New Jersey, and elsewhere. His “Union Facts” website regularly attacks unions.

Why does this highly partisan Foundation qualify for tax-exempt status?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization, Vouchers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »