Howard Blume in the Los Angeles Times describes the flood of campaign cash that managed to sink School Board President Steve Zimmer and another candidate and put a pro-charter majority in charge of the school board.
The billionaires pulled out all the stops to gain control of the board. Now the president of the LAUSD board is Ref Rodriguez, who launched a charter chain in LAUSD. Contrary to my first report, Rodriguez stepped down from the board of his charter chain (PUC). But his sympathies are clear.
A last-minute splurge of donations from billionaire Eli Broad and businessman Bill Bloomfield swept the pro-charter candidates to victory. More than $15 million was spent by both sides, the most ever spent on a school board election in American history.
Netflix founder Reed Hastings alone spent more than $7 million. The Waltons added a few shekels.
The billionaires strike again, intent on destroying public education and democracy, and opening even more privately managed, privately owned and nonunion charters.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The first item of business, rumored to be hiring cheaper teachers and cutting employee health benefits. I predict “Winning like you never seen before. You will get sick of winning.” I hope he uses the cheapest dentist, proctologist, mechanic and stays at the cheapest hotels.
LikeLike
Diane I think we see in this LA situation a controlling example of what can so-easily happen (is happening) everywhere in the US with regard to the very existence of public education. A “controlling example” is not merely an anecdote, but a single situation that holds all of the distorted motivations, intentions, moments, and issues that occur, with little exception, when public education is threatened, goes on the block, and is slated to be replaced by corporate, oligarchic, and religious-ideological control.
LikeLike
Della and Catherine are right about this.
LikeLike
Public school parents should get out of that district. If none of the elected officials support their schools they’re screwed.
Why stick around while they starve the public schools? They’re winding down the public system to replace it with the privatized system they prefer. The writing is on the wall.
LikeLike
Do you think Reed Hastings will get his wish? That “5%” of schools remain public?
The 5% is for the students that are between schools- churn. Ed reformers consider public schools a disfavored back-up to the “choice” schools. They usually slot some mention of public schools at the end of the planning process- an afterthought.
Arne Duncan once announced that “10%” of schools would be privatized.
How do they come up with these numbers? Are these goals, plans, what are they? They’re not real numbers. We know that. The truth is somewhere between 10% and 95%?
LikeLike
Why DO so few ed reformers come out of public schools? Is John King the only high-profile ed reformer who attended a public school?
What are the odds of that in a country where 90% of kids attend public schools? That we’re “led” by a group of people who never attended one?
LikeLike
When the L.A. Times’ Howard Blume busted the leaders of an astroturf parents’ group with questions about funding — in particular, the dark money funding from extreme right-wingers such as the billionaire Koch Brothers and the billionaire Walton family, and also from corporate Democrats such as billionaire Eli Broad and Netflix billionaire Reed Hastings — the leaders of the fake parents group provided Blume with a novel and new spin:
SPEAK UP ‘s Ann Wexler – to – Howard Blume:
“…* the real election story. Scrappy moms bent those billionaires to their will, and got their guy elected.”*
Wow, those billionaires didn’t know what hit ’em, as they were no match for those “scrappy moms.”
NOTE: according to the article, Wexler “is co-founder of a charter school and volunteered with Speak UP.”
But is she a charter school parent?
Even if she is, won’t she also, as “a charter school operator“, financially benefit from an expansion of her charter school operation — an enlargement of her charter school and/or more charter schools run by her —, if the new charter-friendly board that those “scrappy moms” just helped get elected enables and approves such expansion?
LikeLike
Jack writes: “NOTE: according to the article, Wexler ‘is co-founder of a charter school and volunteered with Speak UP.’”
The underlying mentality is shaped by the business/competitive model that works in a democratic environment (with reasonable controls), but that as left to its “invisible hand” ends up politically as an oligarchy–that is, if history has anything to say about it.
But in a business mental framework, public schools are an anomaly and MUST GO–precisely because, from that mentality, public schools are seen as (a) competition for business-run charter schools, and particularly their charter schools; and (b) as having an UNFAIR competitive advantage, across the board, in part, because public schools need not advertise to “get” their students.
What makes such thinking severely dogmatic is that they think their view is the only view –because they are severely separated in their thinking, even absent-from, the democratic political roots they already stand on. What makes it severely ideological is (a) that same dogmatism OR (b) their arrogance and overt contempt for all-things-democratic.
LikeLike
Well said, Catherine. What makes this dogmatic adherence to privatization problematic is these people’s refusal to admit they are wrong. For a while, reformers pretended to reach out & have conversations with public ed supporters. What we quickly learned was their idea of ‘conversation’ was one-sided affirmation of their market driven ideology.
LikeLike
jcgrim Yes–and the dogmatism closes tight around the ideology making it pretty-much impenetrable–and as you say, pretending to want a dialogue, but not really. And the ideology is further supported by all sorts of investments that they see as threatened–money, of course; but also power and the solid social relationships that come together around ideas and their own versions of “class,” especially when they set themselves against others whom they see as “lower class” and as not belonging (e.g., biased ideas of inequality of race, national origin, gender, religious, or just physical health and appearance . . . ).
Politically, the mental situation makes it all a hard nut to crack.
LikeLike
Catherine, I think you’ve pinpointed a critical element in edu- privatizers mindset- “but also power and the solid social relationships that come together around ideas and their own versions of “class,” especially when they set themselves against others whom they see as “lower class” and as not belonging”. This malignant mindset infects Wall St & Silicon Valley in that businesses are interested in applicants only from the top tier. People from the lower half of the bell curve need not apply.
It’s becoming axiomatic inside edu-reformer circles that education & business success justifies their emotional superiority. As long as they pretend to care about improving educational outcomes for ‘those’ kids, they can avoid their repeated failure to provide families with real opportunities (e.g.,living wages & secure, predictable futures, equal opportunities.)
Essentially, they are ignorant elitists. Those poor, dark skinned kids who they claim need saving from failing public schools just happen to be the same kids who don’t live in their neighborhoods or join their country clubs or marry their children. It’s a lie they sell when they claim charters & choice will change that equation. An invitation for membership in their tight circles will never be offered.ever.never.end of story.period.
We need to keep chipping away at charter-voucher deceptions. Behind the charter hype is an unimaginative curriculum with teaching practices straight from the19th century. Contempt for the poor was on full display when Eva’s Success Academy video was leaked showing an untrained teacher humiliating a young child for making a math error.
As Chris Hedges wrote “The rich, who can control their environments, do not need to bother with the concerns or emotions of others. They are in charge. What they want gets done. And the longer they live at the center of their own universe, the more callous, insensitive and cruel they become.”
LikeLike
jcgrim Your note reminds me of Diane’s earlier note where she writes/quotes:
“Note that the term ‘Best and Brightest’ was used ironically by the late author David Halberstam to refer to the ‘geniuses’ from Ivy League universities who got our military mired in a pointless and ultimately failed war in Vietnam. To be the ‘Best and Brightest’ is not a compliment.”
Though I do believe in circumstances, and that there is such a thing as the “best and the brightest” in some of them, the criteria used in the above cases are obviously in need of critique.
LikeLike
What interesting about this politically is the disconnect between national charter cheerleaders and Nick Melvoin.
Melvion goes out of his way to deny he is a “charter advocate”, yet they all portray him as a charter advocate.
The public campaigns of ed reformers are much different than the “debate” inside the echo chamber. Melvion didn’t think it was politically useful to run as a charter advocate. He insists he’s an “agnostic” which is apparently the politically acceptable stance.
If they were really confident the public wanted to get rid of public schools they’d run on that. They don’t. They run on airy liberal-sounding slogans about “great schools” and “excellence”.
In a way I prefer the overtly anti-public school Right. At least you know what you’re getting with a Betsy DeVos.
LikeLike
“Billionaire philanthropist and public education backer Eli Broad is urging senators to vote against President Donald Trump’s pick for education secretary, Betsy DeVos, saying she is “unprepared and unqualified for the position.”
Broad writes in a letter to senators that if DeVos were confirmed, “much of the good work that has been accomplished to improve public education for all of America’s children could be undone.”
Broad says the country needs an education secretary “who believes in public education and the need to keep public schools public.”
You know, I know I’m supposed to be grateful for the weak, ineffective advocacy ed reform occasionally tosses off for “public schools” but I don’t need their charity.
It is outrageous that the federal government no longer supports public schools in a country where 90% of children attend public schools.
The public should be outraged, not begging them to pretty please “support” our schools.
I don’t care if these public employees are ideologically opposed to public schools. No one told them they could make an ideological decision to do 10% of their job.
Public school parents have every right to demand that their elected representatives support public schools. I’m not on “team privatization”. I shouldn’t have to beg federal employees to do their jobs.
LikeLike
I also wish the US Department of Education would stop shilling ed tech product.
If they want to sell ed tech product to public schools why don’t they join a private sector sales team? We’re not paying them to pitch product to public schools.
I’m confident the ed tech industry can field a very aggressive sales team. There’s no reason federal employees should be helping them.
LikeLike
How often need it be said? Best government money can buy.
When money is more important than people it would seem that it is only a matter of time when there will be a pile of money somewhere while people have disappeared.
LikeLike
I knew Broad was still the big money behind privatization in Los Angeles. Many thanks again to Howard Blume for doing the real investigative reporting while the rest of his unfortunate rag just links to charter cheerleading, faux news sites and fawns over all things neoliberal.
LikeLike
I just heard some NPR coverage of this today – pathetic!! Left the listener no more informed about the true motivation of the wealthy backers involved this takeover. The only person interviewed was someone with pro-charter sympathies. No mention that charters are not providing superior education outcomes when compared on a level playing field and no mention of the lack of accountability issue. NPR needs to be called out! You can tell by their coverage that they have been bought off by the Gates Foundation, Walton Foundation, etc.
LikeLike
Carla, I just heard the same pathetic interview on NPR. No mention that charter ‘innovation’ is hype. No talk of the billionaire funders’ anti-democratic plans for LA school system. Interviewers won’t even use the privatization word lest they be forced to broach its implications for institutionalized fraud & discrimination.
LikeLike
I just wrote a complaint about their coverage on the http://www.npr.org/contact website to the ombudsman. Maybe if they hear from enough people they will start covering the issue more honestly.
LikeLike