The Los Angeles Times knows that it is a truly bad idea to let a billionaire buy a school of his choice in the LAUSD, but hey, it is Eli Broad, and he does provide $800,000 a year to underwrite education coverage in the LA Times.
LAUSD already has STEM schools, but this is Eli’s STEM school, and he really wants it.
Besides, it will provide wonderful resources for a few hundred kids in the nation’s second biggest school district, so who can say no?
So much for public education. So much for deliberation and due process. So much for billionaires buying whatever they want.
Does the LA Times agree that any other rich person should be allowed to get funding from the state for any school they want to open? Oh, yeah, that’s charter schools.
The LAUSD board split on the issue, with the pro-charter majority (all in debt to Eli Broad) supporting it, and the anti-charter minority saying that the district already has many excellent STEM programs which could use extra funding. (If they voted again today, the vote might be a tie, since the president of the board was just charged with multiple felony counts of campaign finance fraud.)
But with Eli, enough is never enough. He enjoys sticking his big thumb into the public’s eye and expecting gratitude.
Let us never forget that he secretly contributed money to defeat a ballot proposition to increase funding for the public schools.
If he can’t control them, why bother?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education and commented:
“$800,000 a year to underwrite education” or UNDERCUT
He will spend any amount of money to work against public education.
The editorial in the LA Times, was supportive of the idea. The fact is, that there is “educational apartheid” in this nation. Rich kids, in affluent areas, get to attend excellent public schools, and poor kids in the inner cities, get stuck with crap. No wonder that inner city kids (who are primarily minority children) lose interest in school.
Just the fact, that a wealthy person has to come in, and provide for a school, that should have been funded by taxpayers already, says a lot.
What about the other hundreds of thousands of kids in LA?
What about them? I believe that all children, are entitled to a quality education, regardless of the source. Our nation has a superb “mix” of public/private/parochial universities and colleges, that is the envy of the world. Students come from all over the world, to attend our colleges.
How many foreign students, come to our nation, to attend one of our (publicly-operated) elementary schools?
The citizens/taxpayers of California should be demanding quality education for their children, and be willing to “pony up” the tax payments to provide the quality education.
I am “gobsmacked”, that a wealthy person, has to come in to Los Angeles, and underwrite a school, that the citizens should have built in the first place.
The newspaper editorial is supportive of the idea, and I can see their point. (though I do not necessarily agree with their reasoning)
Nevertheless, I would love to see more NGOs and corporations becoming involved in education. Already many NGOs provide scholarships to college students, and no one objects. Why not encourage more charitable support for K-12 students?
One program I like is the “Laptops for Kidz (sic)” program. A charitable group obtains obsolete and defective computers, and then refurbishes the computers, and provides them to needy children, at no cost. Who could object?
Charles,
You are wrong. Los Angeles has dozens of STEM schools and programs. Wouldn’t it make sense to support them for tens of thousands of kids instead of one vanity school for a few hundred?
Q Los Angeles has dozens of STEM schools and programs. Wouldn’t it make sense to support them for tens of thousands of kids instead of one vanity school for a few hundred? END Q
I find myself in agreement with you (often, and more times than you realize). I think it would be proper, to support all of the children in the Los Angeles school system, who are enrolled in STEM programs. Of course this “makes sense”.
Nevertheless, when a private party wishes to spend his own money, on a program that he believes in, the school system has a choice. Take the money on the conditions specified by the donor, or tell him to “get lost”.
The school system made a choice.
In a perfect world, all children in the school system would be getting a quality education, subsidized by the citizens.
Charles,
Eli doesn’t spend his own money. If he did, he wouldn’t need legislation.
So you’re in favor of eliminating school funding based on real estate taxes and instead creating a state-wide funding system based on need? You’re in favor of eliminating zoning laws that segregate luxury enclaves while creating poor slums? You’re in favor of a universal voucher system that will pay for all kids to attend the likes of Lab School or Sidwell Friends?
Or is your solution limited to “saving” a tiny handful of the “worthy strivers”?
If I understand Charles, he wants every child to get a voucher equal to the cost of tuition at the best private schools.
Say, $40,000-50,000.
Kidding. Charles wants vouchers equal to about $5,000, the illusion of choice.
dienne77, If this is a multiple choice test I pick “saving a tiny handfull of the worthy strivers.”
Funding publicly-operated schools based on property taxes, results in “educational apartheid”. (I used to live in southern Africa). Would it not be more equitable to fund publicly-operated schools from the general revenue? This way each publicly-operated school would get an equal amount of funding, that states/municipalities are spending on education. And the schools in the economically depressed areas, should get additional funding, to underwrite the costs of additional nutritional programs, after-school tutoring, ESL programs, etc.
The current public education programs in the USA are in the bizarre situation where affluent white children in exclusive high-value neighborhoods get excellent (public) schools, while poor (primarily minority) children in economically depressed areas, get horrible public schools. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Inequalities
With the current system of funding, the result is a “vicious cycle”. The schools in wealthy areas continue to get more funding, and as the inner-city schools decline, parents who can “bail out”, and move to more affluent areas, do so. The schools in the abandoned areas continue to decline. The citizens in the wealthy areas have no incentive to pour additional money into failing schools.
I have never discussed zoning laws. I really have no opinion on this subject.
I am solidly in favor of school choice/vouchers/ESAs, and giving parents additional control over the expenditure of their education dollars. This is only fair. Why should only wealthy parents, have the right to obtain quality education for their children? Middle-income parents can move to areas with quality schools, while poor parents cannot. This exacerbates the educational “apartheid”.
Why not return some of the tax money to parents, to utilize for after-school tutoring, extra-curricular activities, etc.
I have never advocated providing parents with a voucher equivalent to the costs of a high-end residence preparatory academy like Choate or Phillips Exeter. That is absurd.
What I do advocate, is providing parents with a voucher, that is reasonably equivalent to the per-pupil expenditures of their state of residence. And I believe that the vouchers should be on a “sliding scale”, where wealthy parents above a certain cut-off, should receive no voucher at all. Why give $7000 to a millionaire? But it should be self-evident, that poor/minority parents will need additional financial assistance. Lower income parents should receive a voucher for a higher amount, because these parents will have additional costs for transportation, computers, etc.
I have also advocated the creation of an educational “common market”. This basically means, the elimination of school district lines, entirely. Example, parents in Prince George’s county, Maryland are illegally sending their children to publicly operated schools in Washington DC. The parents get a “ghost” address, of a friend or relative in DC, and then set up an “underground railroad”, and take their children to a WashDC school. You can go to any publicly-operated school, in DC, and see the cars with Maryland license plates! A Maryland police officer was caught sneaking his children to a DC school, and he was fined $500,000 (half a million dollars) see
http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/maryland-couple-fined-538000-for-sending-kids-to-d-c-schools/
Why not set up an administrative mechanism, where Maryland parents can enroll their children in DC schools legally, and then have the Maryland school system reimburse the DC school system on a per-capita basis? This way students in low-income areas, could attend schools in affluent areas. Students could attend schools across state lines, and district lines. The bizarre process of white districts seceding from the county, to avoid integration, would be meaningless.
I agree, Charles, that all public schools should be equitably funded, from the state treasury, not property taxes.
As I have said one million times to you, only public schools should be funded–not vouchers, not charters, not home schooling, not religious schools.
Must I say it another million times?
Q I agree, Charles, that all public schools should be equitably funded, from the state treasury, not property taxes.
As I have said one million times to you, only public schools should be funded–not vouchers, not charters, not home schooling, not religious schools.
Must I say it another million times?
END Q
I do not think that all schools should be equitably funded. I believe that publicly-operated schools in economically depressed areas, with high crime, and poverty, should get more funding than rich kid’s schools. The schools in the inner cities, need smaller class sizes, and additional nutritional programs. The kids need to be provided with computers. Often these schools have special needs children, and ESL students. All of these cry out for more funding.
I believe that gifted/talented children should receive additional funding to help them meet full potential. There is no political support for this! see
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-turned-against-smart-kids/
I also believe in funding publicly-operated schools. I do NOT advocate the state providing funding to non-public schools to provide educational services. The state can and should provide funding to non-public schools for safety equipment, and non-educational services.
What I do support , is providing parents with more control over the expenditure of their education dollars. Parents should be able to select after-school tutoring, and receive a rebate on their tax payments to pay for the tutoring. Parents should be able to obtain computers for their children, why not give them an ESA, to obtain these out-of-school services and materials?
I also support the publicly-operated schools providing administrative support to home-schooled children. Schools must provide access to extra-curricular activities (Band, athletics,etc ). Publicly-operated schools should provide facilities for SAT testing, and college applications, etc.
Believe me, I understand, that you advocate that all students should be forced to attend the publicly-operated school in their area of residence. You do support school choice for wealthy people, but not for ordinary people. I support school choice for all.
Unless poor kids can get the same funding as wealthy people, School Choice is a hoax
Q Unless poor kids can get the same funding as wealthy people, School Choice is a hoax END Q
I want lower-income families to get MORE funding than wealthy people. Rich families do not need assistance in selecting and paying for quality education.
What I advocate, is giving all families, especially lower-income families more control over their educational expenditures, both in school, and out of school (computers, tutoring, extra-curricular, etc. )
Charles, you continue to confound me.
I want to believe that Charles is an intelligent man. But his comments say no.
What are your confused about? I have articulated my positions thoroughly, and also included websites, and links, for support. I am an open book.
If you are confused about anything, just ask away, and I will answer. (You may not like my answers, and Diane may refuse to publish, as is her right)
Charles,
Since you say the same things so many times, everyone knows what you believe
The only time you flummoxed me was when you complained that public schools were teaching Islam, because you believe in public subsidies for religious indoctrination
Q The only time you flummoxed me was when you complained that public schools were teaching Islam, because you believe in public subsidies for religious indoctrination END !
I do not wish to “flummox” anyone. Let me clarify my position.
I am NOT in favor of public funds being used to indoctrinate anyone, into any religion. This is specifically prohibited by the US constitution. (I support the entire document, including the 2d amendment)
I am in favor of schools teaching comparative religions, and religious history. This activity is specifically permitted , under the SCOTUS decision , Abingdon v. Schempp (1963). The liberal academician, Stephen Prothero, has advocated religious literacy for many years. see
http://stephenprothero.com/books/religious-literacy/
What I am opposed to, is public dollars, being used to promote Islam, or any other religion.
The US Dept of Education has a program called “Access Islam”, which is alleged to be nothing less, than an Islamic indoctrination program. Parents, in many areas, are rising up and opposing this program. see
https://clarionproject.org/pro-islam-indoctrination-public-schools/
How many times, must I state, that I am opposed to any public dollars being used to indoctrinate anyone in any religion?
The “Access Islam” program is yet another reason to abolish the federal Dept of Education.
To put this into context, spending $800k is, for Broad, the equivalent of the average teacher spending about $10-15. But $15 won’t get them as far as the same percentage gets for Broad.
More like .03 when you figure in the New Markets Tax Credit. In 7 years Eli’s 800k will double his investment to $1,600,000- all on the public’s money.
https://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/7/juan_gonzalez_big_banks_making_a
View at Medium.com
Sadly, I stand corrected.
Eli needs to be shunned. The rich are defective.
One can only hope that before he dies, Broad has an awakening, and realizes his wrongdoings.
He’s actually done good things in supporting genetics and cancer research. Makes the whole education thing more tragic.
Eli Broad has done horrible things supporting privatization of genetics and cancer research, turning what used to be science into commercial product development. His museum is a tax shelter. He’s known for enjoying frightening people. There is no good in that man. Never has been.
What LCT said. It makes me sick that people like Gates and Broad get credit for their “good works” in science, medicine, clean water, etc., when all they have done is damage those fields the same way they’ve damaged education and set us back about a generation.
Again, I stand corrected. I was going on my conversations with scientists I have met who have done research with the Broad Institute. I took their word without researching myself. Now that I have, I get it. Disillusioned me about certain people I greatly admire.
The Times editorial argument is far from compelling. It’s kind of pitiful, really. It lists all the problems for the proposed state government school with lack of oversight, lack of enrollment equality, lack of political lobbying transparency, and lack of need for the school with all the great magnet schools and [not so great] charters that already exist. Then it claims there is still a need for the school because… wait for it… public schools suck. Nice try, editors. You’re helping defeat your Broad funded cause. Keep trying. Please.
So much for a “free” press….
FYI: Here are the highest paying professions in the USA:
https://www.theladders.com/p/26914/15-highest-paying-jobs-linkedin
I have, for a long time, supported increased civics education in our nation’s publicly-operated schools. Here is an interesting article:
https://www.ecs.org/the-civics-education-initiative-2015-2017/
Some states, require that students pass the US Citizenship exam (given to aliens who wish to become naturalized US citizens), as a requirement for high school graduation.
We should give that civics test to members of Congress