Watch libertarian Andrew Coulson’s film, now showing on some, not all, PBS stations around the nation.
It was paid for by libertarian foundations that support privatization. The lead funder–the Rose-Mary and Jack Anderson Foundation– is a conduit for the Koch brothers and DeVos family foundations.
http://www.pbs.org/show/school-inc/
Here is my response.
Carol Burris and I will soon be posting a point by point refutation.
Please let PBS know what you think.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Fox given keys to hen house:
“When the Trump administration announced its pick to run the $1.3 trillion federal student loan system on Tuesday, there was one notable thing about the candidate that wasn’t mentioned in the press release: He’s the CEO of a private student loan company.
The Education Department’s statement described A. Wayne Johnson as the “Founder, Chairman and former CEO” of a payments technology company called First Performance Corporation. It noted his PhD in education leadership, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, citing his dissertation, said he “actually wrote the book on student loan debt.”
But what wasn’t noted was Johnson is currently the CEO of Reunion Student Loan Services, a detail confirmed by a company representative reached by phone on Tuesday afternoon. Reunion originates and services private student loans, and offers refinancing and consolidation for existing loans.”
They forgot to tell the public that part. An omission that big isn’t an “omission” – it’s just a lie.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mollyhensleyclancy/betsy-devos-picked-a-student-loan-ceo-to-manage-your?utm_term=.jgJK0P1EZw#.bfmB6e7awD
Wow that is stunning and deplorable. It’s like a pride of lions “guarding” the hen house.
It makes you want to tell young people not to borrow for college. They’re too young to take on that amount of debt without reliable information from credible people. They’ll get screwed. It’s not their fault. No 18 year old should borrow 100k relying on these people to give them the information they need. They simply can’t trust them on that big of a decision- especially the first generation college students. They’re the really vulnerable ones. If you look at the stats they’re the group with the highest debt loads and the worst terms.
The college loan business exploits naive young people, especially the poor. Trump and DeVos support the companies’ right to shackle unsuspecting students into long term debt. They are not looking to help the students who are just prey for the companies.
What a train load of Propaganda from the very first Trailer reference to the wave of innovation that is now improving our global lives but leaving public schools untouched.
The Price of Excellence episode continues as a scary deep example of one biased and untrue assertion after another. What a well funded fiasco.
The Coulson documentary is deplorable. Diane did a fabulous job in rebutting the film. Why didn’t he go to Finland where there are no high stakes tests? And if you look at the South Korean classroom there are about 75 or more students jammed into the room and fanning themselves. Is this learning? Or memorization?
What NEEDS TO BE DONE is making a list of the money made by each Charter School owner starting with Eli Broad and the Waltons.
In the USA money talks. When people see the profits they will faint.
So, when is PBS going to change its name from “Public Broadcasting Service” to “Private Broadcasting Suck-up”?
They won’t even have to change their initials.
You-all should read Audrey Watters.
She’s the only person out there questioning ed tech salespeople and she’s also sharp as a tack and a very lively and original writer 🙂
I have a hard time reading second hand tweets. Too choppy, broken up thoughts. Maybe if I did some acid they would make more sense.
In June 2010, I attended the L.A. Film Festival screening of WAITING FOR SUPERMAN with a fellow teacher. Afterwards, shaking his head, he described to me the viewing experience as “like driving down a busy one-way street the wrong way, only instead of cars flashing by right and left, it’s corporate reform “lies” and distortions flashing by. They keep coming at you so fast, and in such quick succession, that before you can even process or mentally respond to any of them, more lies and distortions keep coming and coming and coming. For someone who knows the truth about what’s going on, you’re just utterly overwhelmed.”
I imagine it’s the same thing with School Inc.
Sign that teacher up! Astute commentary!
Boy, oh boy, do I really want to waste three hours of the not so many I have left on the face of this earth and watch that shit????
Decisions, decisions, decisions.
Currently the answer is no!
Duane, try one
Said in either that 5 year old or teenage voice: “Do I have to? I promise I’ll clean my room instead!”
I am in the same position, Duane. I am afraid I might injure the next person who repeats the reformy mantra. even though Diane did a credible job of rebutting Coulson’s assertions in fat too short a time, I wanted to do physical harm to the interviewer almost every time he opened his mouth. Who do we get to put together a three hour documentary on the best of public education and the challenges it faces?
cx; Even though….far too short
My proofreading goes out the window as my temperature rises.
It. just gets worse and worse. The privatizers make $$$$$$! They care not a wit about our young. Sickens me.
Your response is perfect, Diane. We are living “Tyranny by Corporation” aided by politicians. Do the greedy ever learn from history? Answer: NOPE. The greedy ones are blinded by their own GREED.
Arne Duncan still hard at work promoting charter schools:
“Former Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan threw Mayor de Blasio a curveball Tuesday when he joined Hizzoner on a teleconference to back renewal of mayoral control of schools — but said he also supports adding charter schools.
While Duncan made it clear he’s not familiar with the specifics of the end-of-legislative-session battle in Albany, his broad position that charter schools should be a part of a political compromise aligns with that of state Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan, who is battling the mayor on the renewal.”
If you’re an “agnostic” isn’t that supposed to mean you would also promote public schools, at least one public school, somewhere, at some time?
He doesn’t know the new charter schools will be better than the existing public schools. He simply wants more charter schools and fewer public schools. How is that “agnostic”?
He’s absolutely choosing a label and prioritizing one set of schools over another. It’s just silly to say he’s not. The goal here is more charter schools and fewer public schools. Since he doesn’t know how these charter schools will operate or perform he simply prefers charter schools over existing public schools, and “quality” doesn’t matter a bit because he can’t know they’ll be BETTER schools- they don’t exist yet. Why not just admit that? How can we have a “debate” if there’s this stubborn denial that they’re promoting a preferred set of schools over another? The whole premise is false.
He didn’t answer your question “Why he (the liar in the documentary) didn’t go to Finland?”
At times, I wanted to slap that smug look off of the MetroFocus guy’s face. Do they force us to go to Facebook to leave comments?
“Why doesn’t education use innovation to grow like a successful business? ” From the PBS web site. This made me laugh.
My neighbor, who is in his late 50s, has spent half his life in private enterprise and half working for the federal government. He says both have pros and cons. But the myth that private enterprise is always better, always cheaper, and always more efficient is just that, a myth.
Your neighbor is spot-on. I have been in the US Military (Air Force). I have worked for the Commerce Department, the State Department, and the Defense Department. I have worked as a contractor for the US government. I am working at the Pentagon now (contractor). I have also worked in the private sector.
The government (federal/state/municipal) does many things properly. The private sector does other things properly. The private sector does not always produce results better/cheaper/more efficient, than the public sector.
Charles,
Here is the difference. The private sector is driven by competition to produce cheaper products and to produce profits for their investors. The public sector–in education–is expected to provide equality of educational opportunity, not profits.
@Diane: Do you truly believe that the publicly-operated schools are charged with providing “equality” of educational opportunity? What are you smoking?
The quality of educational services provided by publicly-operated schools varies wildly. The publicly-operated schools here in Fairfax VA are extremely good. The publicly-operated schools across the river in the nation’s capital, are uniformly horrible, the worst in our nation.
You are quite right, that publicly-operated schools, are not interested in profits. No government operation exists to provide a profit.
The mission of the public schools, as defined by law and the Supreme Court, is to provide equality of opportunity. The mission of charters and vouchers is to get high test scores.
This blog exists to advocate for a better education for all children, not for some children. That is why I cannot support charters or vouchers.
Q The mission of the public schools, as defined by law and the Supreme Court, is to provide equality of opportunity. END Q
Where does it say this? Do you have a court case or legislation you can cite?
The Supreme Court (USA) has held exactly the opposite, in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)
Q:
The Court refused to examine the system with strict scrutiny since there is no fundamental right to education in the Constitution and since the system did not systematically discriminate against all poor people in Texas. Given the similarities between Texas’ system and those in other states, it was clear to the Court that the funding scheme was not “so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory.” Justice Powell argued that on the question of wealth and education, “the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.” END Q.
see
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1332
Can you cite a case, which overturns Rodriguez?
Publicly-run schools are inherently discriminatory, schools in wealthy districts with a solid tax base, have more resources than publicly-run schools in poor areas, with a diminished tax base.
NO publicly-run school anywhere in this republic, has a mission to provide equality of opportunity.
You also state: Q The mission of charters and vouchers is to get high test scores.END Q
Shouldn’t the mission of ALL schools, be to get high scores ,and to help ALL students reach their potential?
Have you read Brown vs Board of Education (1954)?
Relevant passages:
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.
In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on “those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.” In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: “. . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.” [347 U.S. 483, 494] Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs…
Of course, I am familiar with Brown v. Board of Education (1954), The court decided to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1895), with the Brown decision. The doctrine of “separate but equal” was overturned.
Sadly, the Brown decision addressed race only, (notwithstanding the lofty goals stated in the opinion).
Racial equality was established, but economic equality was not.
The Rodriguez decision in 1973, affirmed the right of states to refuse to provide equal ECONOMIC resources to publicly-operated schools. To this day, schools in depressed areas, with a deficient tax base, cannot provide the same financial support to schools in areas with a solid tax base.
The result is that schools in poor neighborhoods have less money than schools in wealthy neighborhoods.
see this story:
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/education/99093-two-schools-15-miles-and-worlds-apart
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”-Orwell
What is your definition of economic equality?
My definition is to offer wages that are enough to earn a livable wage for the area one lives in. A wage that supports a family for rent, food, utilities, etc. without the need to work more than one full-time job
There is no way we can all be economically equal to a millionaire or billionaire.
Q What is your definition of economic equality?
My definition is to offer wages that are enough to earn a livable wage for the area one lives in. A wage that supports a family for rent, food, utilities, etc. without the need to work more than one full-time job
There is no way we can all be economically equal to a millionaire or billionaire. END Q
“Economic equality”, in the context of my previous comment on the Rodriguez decision, means equality of spending on publicly-operated education.
In many areas, the public school system is financed (partially) by property taxes. Wealthy areas, with solid tax money, can spend lavishly on public education. Poor and depressed areas, do not have the tax revenues, and cannot spend as much on education.
The result of this economic inequality, is that wealthy children get a superior (public) education, and poor children get an inferior (public education). You can see it right here where I live. Fairfax county VA has excellent public schools. Just across the river in WashDC, the public schools are arguably the worst in the nation.
The Supreme Court ruled in the Rodriguez decision, that this is perfectly acceptable.
This is why affluent people move to the “better” areas, to get access to the better schools, and desert the economically depressed areas where the schools are inferior. This sets up a “vicious cycle”, and the wealthier areas see their property values increase, and the opposite occurs in the inner cities. Until states enact vouchers, only the wealthy can exercise (public) school choice.
The obvious solution is for the states/municipalities to abandon property taxes to fund public education. If the states/municipalities funded schools from the general revenue, there would be the incentive to provide equal funding across the board. And the feds could also jump in, and provide block grants to the schools in economically depressed areas, also increasing their finances.
You have obviously never had to meet a payroll (neither have I). If workers earned more, they could also buy more. There is a ludicrous call to increase the minimum wage. Employers are only able to offer what the market will bear. I work as an engineer, and my wife works at two jobs. There are three jobs in my household.
And you are right, we will never be the same as rich people. They have more money.
How do you define the difference between a failing and succeeding school?
Here is my definition. A school that is labeled a failure almost always has a high ratio of child poverty. And schools labeled successful almost always have a low ratio of child poverty. Therefore the alleged failure of the school is caused by poverty and socioeconomics and has little to nothing to do with the quality of teaching. These schools that are falsely labeled failures also have little power to change what caused that poverty in the first place. No school has power to change the environment the children live in outside of the school’s walls and/or fence.
But a strong argument can be made that offering smaller class sizes in well-maintained buildings will help teachers reach success with more children that live in poverty.
In the last few decades, there has been no evidence that most if not all corporate charters schools have had any success in dealing with this challenge.
The original concept of charter schools was not to turn our children and public dollars over to autocratic, for-profit, secretive, corporate charter schools. The original concept was to turn those charter schools, under the umbrella of traditional public school districts, over to teachers without any top-down interference – exactly what Finland for all of its public schools that led to that country’s success as one of the best public school systems on the planet without that so-called CHOICE that has already been tried in Chile and Sweden and failed horribly. Both of those countries have not abandoned that so-called CHOICE.
That is not what the autocratic, for-profit, opaque (secretive), often fraudulent and child abusing corporate charter school industry has built. This private sector industry built on public dollars and greed does not serve the same children that the original charter school concept was supposed to do. Instead, these so-called CHOICE schools reject the children, who are mostly living in poverty, and refuse to work with them, to educate them. to help them cross over to success and leave poverty behind.
Sorry for the typo. Correction: Both of those countries (Chile and Sweden) have NOW abandoned that so-called CHOICE.
Andrew Coulson passed away on 2-7-16 at age 48. I loathe and abhor his philosophy but I would not wish death on him, especially at age 48. Sorry that he died so young.
From the Cato site: “He had been fighting brain cancer for more than a year. His wife Kay Krewson was at his side throughout the entire challenging journey. Andrew never gave up, and he retained his good humor, his wit, his commitment to his work, and his determination to do things his way right up until the end, as friends could see in his emails and his Facebook posts.”
Libertarianism is pure greed masquerading as some kind of philosophy or viable political system. It’s akin to putting lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig, cosmetic applications or not.
Coulson’s ugly legacy echoes the time in history when 1 million Irish were allowed to die of starvation because the British revered a policy of unfettered free markets.
Shame on any and all people responsible for the creation and airing of School Inc.
IMO, PBS management exemplifies The One Percent Solution by Gordon Later.
The American people are forced to choose between the sale and loss of publicly owned bandwidths and propaganda from the 0.1%, broadcast on the “public” T.V. stations.
Last year the richest 1% shifted $4 tril. from the nation to themselves. They are piranha in a feeding frenzy.
Regardless of the Brown decision, what we have in America an “educational apartheid” system. Students in wealthy suburban districts, where there is a solid tax base, get access to a superior public school. Students in economically-depressed areas, rural areas, and inner-cities, with a poor tax base, are crammed into schools, without adequate funding.
A national disgrace.
Agreed, Charles. There should be a statewide funding of schools that allots more money to the poorest kids. We should not fund public schools with property taxes. Would your fellow Republicans support that?
What should we do to solve that mess?
I suggest we do what France does. All education money from all the states flows into one basket and then flows out to be spread equally among all the traditional public schools in the country.
And that means there would be no CHOICE between:
community-based, democratic, transparent, non-profit, traditional public schools
corporate charter schools
public dollar vouchers that help pay for private schools.
virtual corporate charter schools
There would only be #1 for public dollars.