Jan Resseger read Gordon Lafer’s new book, “The One Percent Solution: How Corporations Are Remaking America One State at a Time,” and she understood the pattern on the rug.
“Gordon Lafer explains that in the November 2010 election, “Eleven state governments switched from Democratic or divided control to unified Republican control of the governorship and both houses of the legislature. Since these lawmakers took office in early 2011, the United States has seen an unprecedented wave of legislation aimed at lowering labor standards and slashing public services.” (p. 2) “In January 2011, legislatures across the country took office under a unique set of circumstances. In many states, new majorities rode to power on the energy of the Tea Party ‘wave’ election and the corporate-backed RedMap campaign… (T)his was the first class of legislators elected under post-Citizens United campaign finance rules, and the sudden influence of unlimited money in politics was felt across the country. Finally, the 2011 legislative sessions opened in the midst of record budget deficits (from the Great Recession), creating an atmosphere of fiscal crisis that made it politically feasible to undertake more dramatic legislation than might otherwise have been possible… For the corporate lobbies and their legislative allies, the 2010 elections created a strategic opportunity to restructure labor relations, political power, and the size of government.” (p 44)…
“Lafer continues: “Political science traditionally views policy initiatives as emerging from either reasoned evaluation of what has worked to address a given social problem, or a strategic response to public opinion. But the corporate agenda for education reform is neither. Its initiatives are not the product of education scholars and often have little or no evidentiary basis to support them. They are also broadly unpopular… In this sense, education policy… provides an instructive window into the ability of corporate lobbies to move an extremely broad and ambitious agenda that is supported neither by social scientific evidence nor by the popular will.” (p. 130)
“Who are the corporate lobbies crafting and pushing the anti-tax, union-bashing, anti-public education agenda? “Almost all of these initiatives reflect ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council) model legislation, and have been championed by the Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity, and a wide range of allied corporate lobbies.” (p. 130) “Furthermore, the corporate agenda is carried out through an integrated network that operates on multiple channels at once: funding ALEC to write bills, craft legislative talking points, and provide a meeting place for legislators and lobbyists to build relationships; supporting local think tanks in the ALEC-affiliated State Policy Network to produce white papers, legislative testimony, opinion columns, and media experts; contributing to candidate campaigns and party committees; making independent expenditures on behalf of lawmakers or issues; and deploying field organizers to key legislative districts.” (p. 39)
“A primary strategy is tax cutting: “‘The best way to stimulate the economy,’ insisted a senior fellow at the Koch-funded Cato Institute, is ‘to shrink government… lower marginal tax rates, and streamline regulations.’ The corporate right’s exhortations for an unprecedented policy of cutting taxes and services in the midst of recession was not an evidence-based policy and indeed did not yield the economic growth its proponents forecast… There was no reason to believe that tax cuts were the key to economic recovery. However continuing tax cuts achieved something else; they dramatically—and perhaps permanently—shrank the size of government.” (p. 65)
“How has all this affected public education? “(B)udget cuts were particularly widespread—and particularly devastating—in the country’s school systems. In 2010-11, 70 percent of all U.S. school districts made cuts to essential services. Despite widespread evidence of the academic and economic value of preschool education, twelve states cut pre-K funding that year, including Arizona, which eliminated it completely. Ohio repealed full-day kindergarten and cut its preschool program to the point that it served 75 percent fewer four-year-olds than it had a decade earlier. Pennsylvania also cut back from full-day to half-day kindergarten in many districts—including Philadelphia, which also eliminated 40 percent of its teaching staff…. More than half the nation’s school districts changed their thermostat settings…. Research shows that the availability of trained librarians makes a significant improvement in student reading and writing skills, yet by 2014, one-third of public schools in the country lacked a full-time certified librarian.” (p. 69)
Conspiracy theory? No, a well-planned, carefully executed plan to cut taxes, kill unions, privatize education.

Diane I think the CONCERTED effort of these groups, like ALEC, is a best-kept secret, kept from the polity. The change over the years has been slow and creepy.
Also, as I write, Betsy is up there before Congress chanting “return control to the parents and the states;” and the government is “one size fits all.” And she answers pointed questions with canned “answers” that avoid the significance of the question asked.
Guess what–there ARE ALTERNATIVE FACTS–this means giving talking points as answers to questions which, if answered rightly, would reveal the truth.
LikeLike
Betsy has developed a language of her own to mask her true goals.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Diane: “Betsy has developed a language of her own to mask her true goals.”
Yes–it’s on full display today in Congress. And she cannot unmask her true goals because she knows what they will sound like to Congresspeople, and to those parents whom she claims to want to “return choice” to.
And if she knows that, then she is not naive at all but a willing and guilty participant in the same ALEC-type snow-job that has been creeping over the country’s legislatures since ALEC’s inception. It still irks me to no end that someone who inherited wealth from a business like Amway thinks that inheritance qualifies her to snow American parents and make policy that steals the education of the very children she pretends to care about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
posted the article itself at : https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/State-Cuts-to-Education-Fu-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Corporations_Legislation_State-Corruption_State-Government-170606-709.html#comment661879
LikeLike
“In San Francisco’s public schools, Marc Benioff, the chief executive of Salesforce, is giving middle school principals $100,000 “innovation grants” and encouraging them to behave more like start-up founders and less like bureaucrats.
In Maryland, Texas, Virginia and other states, Netflix’s chief, Reed Hastings, is championing a popular math-teaching program where Netflix-like algorithms determine which lessons students see.
And in more than 100 schools nationwide, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief, is testing one of his latest big ideas: software that puts children in charge of their own learning, recasting their teachers as facilitators and mentors.
In the space of just a few years, technology giants have begun remaking the very nature of schooling on a vast scale, using some of the same techniques that have made their companies linchpins of the American economy. Through their philanthropy, they are influencing the subjects that schools teach, the classroom tools that teachers choose and fundamental approaches to learning.”
And all of ed reform and all politicians are backing it, completely uncritically- no questions asked.
Because everyone knows that “technology giants” know what’s best for children and are not at all motivated by profit. They float ABOVE profit, on a pure cloud of good intentions, unlike mere mortals who are fallible and “self interested”.
The adults involved in this have basically told tech companies- “here’s 50 million children- run experiments on them and we’ll not only let you, we’ll pay you for it”
LikeLiked by 1 person
scariest information here
LikeLike
Benioff, unlike the others in the articles, gives each principal $100,000 a year of UNRESTRICTED funds. That’s different from tying strings or selling garbage to them or compelling them to buy your stuff
LikeLike
One phase of the plan is at the beginning in higher ed. The Gates-funded Frontier Set introduced in 2017, with the support of the AASCU and APLU, has two higher ed systems. “Georgia will implement business models for the collaborative course development and delivery”.
LikeLike
As far as I’m concerned the funding cuts to public schools are the real “achievement” of ed reform in Ohio.
They’re either lousy advocates or they deliberately set out to harm existing public schools. There is no other possibility, looking at “results”
I can see a difference in my local public school just since my eldest went thru and now my youngest- in a span of 15 years. None of it is an improvement.
I’m old enough to remember field trips and an art teacher. At one time this school system had a greenhouse. The smaller kids actually grew things. Giving them a Chromebook in exchange for the “art lady” seems like a bad deal to me. That’s a rip-off.
LikeLike
“That’s a rip-off.”
No doubt Chiara, no doubt!
LikeLike
Betsy DeVos is making it easy. Did you know all kids who go to public schools end up in prison? True fact! The federal government told me so.
Who in their right mind would fund these horrible places she describes? I’m surprised public schools get any funding at all after this 20 year smear campaign.
LikeLike
90+% of public school funding comes from states and municipalities. If the feds cut back on spending at the K-12 level, the states/municipalities will have to come up with some or all of the difference. The people still pay for it, there is no such thing as a spontaneously generated government dollar. Maybe the feds can be encouraged to provide less in programs, and more in block grants, so that less of the federal spending can be lost in “friction”, and more of the spending can actually make it into the classroom.
Another reason for abolishing the Dept of Education.
LikeLike
Charles,
The Feds should spend more, especially to reduce class sizes for impoverished children.
LikeLike
Charles I think you are a cloned-drone, sent here and probably paid just to fill up blog pages with the destructive quasi-Republican party line. I doubt you are impervious to understanding as a general rule; but you CERTAINLY are resistant to understanding anything that is being written here. I’ve gotten to just trash your notes–a dictionary picture for: a waste of time.
LikeLike
Since 90-percent of K-12 funding comes from the local and/or state level, then local communities (voters) should decide how that public money is spent in their community: for vouchers, autocratic, for-profit, corporate charter schools, or community-based, democratic, transparent, non-profit traditional public schools where parents/public have a voice.
Wait, wait, the public was allowed to vote on this issue repeatedly in one state after another over a period of 20 years or so. Vouchers and corporate charter schools lost, lost and lost some more. The voters always supported the community-based, democratic public schools.
The autocrats like Betsy DeVos don’t like to lose to the voters so they spend billions to get their puppets elected to state legislators and take over elected school boards to cut out the voters and force these choices on the public by not letting the public vote on the issue.
LikeLike
I agree, that the feds should provide more direct funding to the states. Why not provide the funding in the form of block grants? The funding could be used by the states/municipalities to expand physical plant, and hire more staff, and thus reduce class size and lower the student/teacher ratio.
With block grants, there is less paperwork, less (federal) government supervision, and nit-picking. The states would have more leeway, in how to spend the money more efficiently. Less of the federal dollars would be lost in “friction”, with more of the funding getting down to the classroom level.
There are many things, that we agree on!
LikeLike
Charles, as you know, conservative Republicans have been promoting block grants for years. Democrats oppose them because commingling all funds may lead to the disappearance of programs that are worthy but lack political power.
LikeLike
That is truly sad. The children lose. You would think, that handing the funds directly over to the states, with minimal supervision, would give the states the freedom, to target the spending more carefully and properly. What works in New Jersey, may not be appropriate for rural Idaho.
What you are omitting, is that each of these “programs”, however worthy, have federal and state administrators and concurrent administrative costs. The democrats protect the programs, because that is their constituency!
LikeLike
The many are at war with the few and too many of the many don’t even know who is behind the war and what is happening. They are clueless. They are ignorant. They are living in an alternative universe ruled by alternative facts and alternative news mostly if not all based on hate, bias, racism, flawed logic, lies, misinformation and conspiracy theories.
The ignorant many are being manipulated to support the few that are waging war against the many. In this alternative, hate filled world ruled by greed, this is like many Jews supporting Hitler as he builds the death camps to eradicate the Jewish people.
Is it time yet to heed Jefferson’s advice?
LikeLike
They’re holding yet another “education hearing” that is about vouchers.
There are 100 Senators. Can we get ONE who some interest in kids in existing public schools? I know none of them went to public schools or send their children or grandchildren to public schools- hell, they don’t even hire graduates of public schools, but they must pass by public schools in their states on the way to the airport.
We have debate after debate on “public education” where public schools are barely mentioned except as the “default” schools to back up the “choice” schools.
It is ludicrous. These people aren’t advocates for public schools! Public schools have no advocates. They can’t even get a hearing, yet they educate NINETY per cent of kids.
LikeLike
We spent all of Obama’s two terms discussing charter schools and we’ll now spend all of Trump’s term discussing private schools.
90% of children and parents somehow ended up without a single advocate among the thousands of employees they’re paying at the federal level. THAT is capture by an “interest group”. This is what it looks like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just got done writing to my House Rep. Jared Polis about this kind of BS. Jared owns two charter schools in Denver. He lives in Boulder and his parents founded Blue Mountain Press and is a rich white boy.
LikeLike
Yvonne,
Jared Polis is the ultimate Democrat privatizers. Loves charters. Intimidates colleagues on education committee who try to defend public schools.
LikeLike
Thanks for this article detailing what has happened since 2010. The RethugliKKKans (my preferred spelling) are aided and abetted by corporate Democrats such as the Clintons, Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, and others who still push neoliberal economics down our throats, despite its failure and the hardships it has caused since the 1970’s. Only a true People’s Agenda, similar to what Bernie Sanders (and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK) has offered, can rescue us from the Corporate Duopoly, and Bernie and his followers had better start realizing how the evil U.S. military/financial empire MUST be opposed and dismantled if we ALL are to have a sustainable future.
LikeLike
“. . . aided and abetted by corporate DIMOCRAPS [my preferred spelling] such as the Clintons, Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein. . . ”
There, corrected your spelling, Ed!
LikeLike
DEMONcrats, fellas, DEMONcrats.
LikeLike
The Center for American Progress and New America need to be excised from the Democratic Party. Until then, the Party is the concubine of the richest 0.1%.
LikeLike
Diane: Below is a part of a longer article from EdWeek. The full article is linked below. It concerns a part of the Betsy DeVos hearing in Congress earlier this week.
ALL QUOTED BELOW First, the head of the article, then the part that concerns religious exemptions.
GOP Skeptical on Trump Budget
Republicans take issue with deep cuts proposed in White House budget during appropriations hearing with Betsy DeVos. She appears open to ending the release of the names of colleges seeking Title IX religious exemptions. By Andrew Kreighbaum . . . . June 7, 2017 . . . .
Title IX Religious Exemptions
In an exchange with Senator James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, DeVos also indicated she was open to ending the publication of a list of institutions that seek exemptions from Title IX’s requirements for religious reasons. In response to pressure from advocates for gay and transgender students, the department began releasing a list of those colleges and universities in the final year of the Obama administration. A 2015 report from the Human Rights Campaign said the department doesn’t have much discretion in the granting of those exemptions but argued that public knowledge of the requests is important to protect LGBT students. Without transparency, those students could find themselves enrolled at institutions legally granted the ability to discriminate against them, the group argued.
Lankford told DeVos federal law allows institutions to seek those exemptions and that proactively releasing a list — as opposed to a response to a Freedom of Information Act request — is a form of shaming religious entities.
DeVos said it sounded like a public list is not necessary.
“Religious liberty is a very key and important issue to be discussed in the context of all educational settings,” she told Lankford.
Asked whether DeVos’s comments signaled a change in the policies of the department, a spokeswoman said no decision has been made regarding the religious exemptions list. END QUOTE
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/06/07/republican-senators-raise-doubts-about-white-house-budget-proposal?utm_source=Inside+Higher+Ed&utm_campaign=fe49e5a8ce-DNU20170607&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1fcbc04421-fe49e5a8ce-198488425&mc_cid=fe49e5a8ce&mc_eid=f743ca9d07
LikeLike
Teacher Librarians lose their positions due to decisions made by schools and/or districts for economic reasons.
In California, it’s a lot cheaper to hire an aide (high school education) who can check out books to students than it is to hire a Teacher Librarian (two credentials, one as a teacher and one for library & media services) who provides instruction to students on information literacy and digital citizenship, partners with classroom teachers for both instruction and finding supplemental teaching resources, and stays informed on technological developments to furnish facts and recommendations to school leaders–in addition to the more typical functions of supporting students’ reading and recommending books.
(It’s also even cheaper to simply not keep the library open and just use those funds for other purposes–which is what happened to my position when my salary was “repurposed” to retain one of the assistant principal positions that otherwise would have been cut due to lower student enrollment.)
And the charter schools that are all the rage? Most of them do not have libraries at all!
Perhaps the most sinister aspect of reducing library professionals and access to properly-staffed school libraries is the resultant lessening of access to information and training in how to find it. I’d hate to think that this is an intentional part of the overall design, but , maybe public ignorance is indeed bliss to the profit-motivated education controllers.
LikeLike
In addition to slashing money spent on education, states have increased administrative expenditure and technological purchase in response to federal requirements due to NCLB and RTTT. Thus class size has ballooned.
LikeLike