Archives for the month of: September, 2018

Charles Foster Johnson is a pastor, a supporter of public education, and a great advocate for separation of church and state. He founded Pastors for Texas Children to marshall support for public school students and their teachers and schools. PTC has been a major force in blocking vouchers every year in the Texas Legislature. He has worked with pastors in other states to encourage them to speak out against vouchers and privatization. He has reminded his colleagues that the best way to protect religious liberty is to avoid any funding by the government for religious activities or schools. He has attended national meetings of NPE and was a keynote speaker at our meeting in Oakland, CA. It was a rare treat to watch 500 educators prepare to listen to a Baptist preacher, tense up, then break into smiles when they realized that he is on our side and wants to make public schools better for all children.

He writes:


The evangelical support for President Trump is alarming for Christian ministers like me, who do not share their views and values. But, it is my sense, possibly born of my inveterate optimism, that the Evangelical coalition supporting Trump is breaking down. 

It’s an arcane nuance, but Trump only has the continued support of a certain subset of evangelicals, those of a triumphalist mentality, who feel that it is God’s will that their particular brand of Christianity has a divine right to succeed. These people have been at war with the culture for decades. They have advanced their apocalyptic brand through the peculiar grievance that the world is awful, that America is lost, and that it all should be blown up. Thus, their disdain for our American institutions, including public education.

They are found largely in middle class, suburban, megachurch demographic and religious categories. There is a detached gnosticism that marks their theology. The emphasis is not on love of neighbor, but rather one’s own prosperity and alleviation of anxiety. It bears little resemblance to the faith outlined in the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. Harold Bloom, the Yale literary critic, nailed this curious gnosticism twenty years or so ago in a book called “The American Religion.” 

But, here is some good news:  real, organic, embodied faith communities across the theological spectrum – conservative, moderate, liberal– are not falling for Trump’s toxic mythology. These are smaller, more connected congregations in rural communities, small towns, and urban neighborhoods that are highly contextualized. They are not the disembodied entertainment circuses of the megachurches. We see these congregations thoroughly involved in their neighborhoods, particularly their public schools, and internalizing the pressing human need found in the children. Yes, some of these folks voted for Trump, but they are beginning to rethink the entire program. Providentially, Donald Trump is waking up the church!

This is why you see a growing communalism generating in places like Texas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Candidates like Beto O’Rourke are tapping in to this communalism, and the message is simple: love your neighbor as yourself. Accordingly, there is an astonishing reaffirmation of public education nationwide. Evidence of this is the defeat of vouchers in Texas the three past legislative sessions, the remarkable repudiation of anti-public education candidates in Oklahoma this past week, and the teacher uprisings in Kentucky and West Virginia. These states are gaining sufficient strength to shift the conversation to charter schools, the privatization measure of choice for corporate profiteers. We will have some kind of policy in the upcoming legislative session, however modest, that draws the line on further charter expansion. This would not have been possible in these states even a couple of years ago. 

So, why the paradox of so-called “evangelical” support for President Trump in the heartland at the same time we are seeing a recovery of progressive faith and politics in the same southern and midwestern Bible belt localities?

When sociologists of religion drill down deep in examining what I’m calling this “evangelical subset,” and inquire as to the exact nature of their religious observances and practices, they find that many of them do not attend religious services, are not active in any religious community, do not hold church membership, do not engage in formal prayer, do not read Scripture, do not participate in good works or service.  In other words, do not have any embodied or communal behaviors that constitute what C.S. Lewis artfully called “mere Christianity.” 

Rather, they have a hyper-rationalistic and strictly conceptual notion of what constitutes “faith.” It is a mix of doctrinal purity (literal view of Scripture, creationism, etc.), a hermeneutic of suspicion about culture (academia, media, Hollywood are evil), and a reactionary view of history and politics (if we could only “go back” to when gays stayed in the closet, women stayed in the kitchen, and Christianity occupied the public square.).

Perhaps a church history lesson is instructive. A perfectly good word, “evangelical” has been stripped of its theological and historical roots, and assigned to this weirdly gnostic and apocalyptic political worldview. The word comes from the Gk. euanggelion meaning “gospel” or “good news.” It was a political term used by Caesar to announce his arrival into the gates of a Roman Empire city. The writers of the New Testament, subversives that they were, co-opted Caesar’s terminology to describe the announcement of what they considered to be the New Rule of God in the world expressed in the teachings of Jesus. 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer struggled mightily with the application of the word in his day when so many so-called “evangelical” Lutherans threw in with Hitler. So, Bonhoeffer and Karl Barth called their group the “confessing” church instead. 

The very term “Christian” has taken on a similar bad reputation in the culture at large. The term literally means “little Christ” and was a term of derision when first applied by the Romans who understandably thought the Jesus cult was the strangest of all the exotic religions they encountered in their conquests.

The term has fallen into disrepute again, especially among Fredrich Schleiermacher’s “cultured despisers of religion.”

I had a fascinating experience not long ago that brought this home to me in a chilling way. A young TCU student who had recently arrived at the university from New York City overheard me visiting with a friend in a Fort Worth coffee shop, approached our table, interrupted us courteously, and said: 

“I’m sorry, forgive me, but I couldn’t help overhearing your conversation. You say that you are a Christian, but you sure don’t talk like one.” 

Thinking instinctively that she was an “evangelical” of the variety described above, I groaned inside and said, “Excuse me?”

“Well, I’ve been listening to you for the better part of the last hour. You speak of justice, full equal rights for all people, acceptance and affirmation for LGBTQ folks, social responsibility, and the Common Good. You sure don’t sound like a Christian.”

She went on to say that the only Christians she knew of were intolerant, bigoted, hateful, and militant, which is why my speech confused her. Honest to God, this young woman, without a shred of irony, equated Christianity with a cult of meanness, and understood that fear, hate and shame were requirements. 

Needless to say, that’s a conversation I won’t soon forget.

Pete Tucker keeps track of the Washington Post’s negative coverage of Maryland gubernatorial candidate Ben Jealous, who is running against Republican Governor Larry Hogan. See here for his earlier story on this matter.

The Post slants its headlines, as you will see, to put Jealous in a bad light and to insulate Hogan from Association with Trump.

Jealous, a former leader of the NAACP, is a genuine progressive. The Post doesn’t like that.

After the recent primaries, the Post hailed Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo, the neoliberal who curtailed public sector pensions, as a real Reformer. Does the Post have a vested interest in the status quo?

Andrew Cuomo is Governor of New York. He is running for his third term. The New York Times endorsed him in the Democratic primary. The next day, it wrote an editorial about the swamp of corruption in Albany.

Eight days after Cuomo’s primary victory, the Times published this article about his closest aide, who was convicted of accepting bribes. The code word for bribe was “ziti.”

Why Joseph Percoco’s Conviction Matters, Especially to Governor Cuomo

“Thursday will not be a good day for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo.

“One of his former closest aides and friends, Joseph Percoco, will be sentenced at 2 p.m. for his conviction in March on federal corruption charges.

“Mr. Percoco, 49, held the title of executive deputy secretary, but that didn’t begin to describe how powerful and important he was to Mr. Cuomo. With Mr. Percoco almost certainly heading to prison, here are five things to know about the case and its importance.

“Who Is Joseph Percoco?

“Mr. Percoco was viewed as a behind-the-scenes muscle man and logistics specialist, who handled preparations for many of the governor’s events. Mr. Percoco had also been close to Mr. Cuomo’s father, Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, and was described by Andrew Cuomo as “my father’s third son, who I sometimes think he loved the most.”

“But after a nearly eight-week trial, Mr. Percoco was found guilty of soliciting and accepting more than $300,000 in bribes from executives working for two companies with state business in return for taking official actions to benefit the firms. Much of the money came in the form of a “low-show” job given to his wife, Lisa Toscano-Percoco, by an energy firm that wanted to build a power plant in the Hudson Valley.

“Mr. Percoco’s trial symbolized what prosecutors, good government groups and Mr. Cuomo’s political opponents have said was Albany’s culture of influence peddling and secret deals, under the governor’s watch.

“Indeed, Mr. Percoco’s name became a campaign watchword for corruption for Cynthia Nixon, Mr. Cuomo’s vanquished primary rival, and it is certain to remain so in the upcoming general election, where Mr. Cuomo, who is seeking a third term, will face off against Marcus J. Molinaro, a Hudson Valley Republican.

“Corruption in Albany? Say it ain’t so.

“If the Percoco conviction had a familiar ring to it, there’s good reason: It was the first of two major corruption cases to buffet Mr. Cuomo’s administration this year, and one of several to shake the state capital in his second term.

“In July, Alain E. Kaloyeros, the former president of the State University of New York Polytechnic Institute, was found guilty in a case involving the governor’s signature upstate economic development project, the Buffalo Billion. Mr. Kaloyeros, once hailed as a genius by Mr. Cuomo, was convicted in a bid-rigging scheme that included a state-funded $750 million solar panel factory on the banks on the Buffalo River.

“That case was sandwiched between the retrials and convictions of two other major Albany figures: Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly speaker, and Dean G. Skelos, the former Republican State Senate leader, who was convicted days after Mr. Kaloyeros on bribery, extortion and conspiracy charges.

“Albany has had dozens of politicians convicted of various misdeeds over the last decade or so. Indeed, even when Albany tries to take on corruption, it sometimes ends up with more scandal. In 2014, Mr. Cuomo was heavily criticized for interfering with and eventually shutting down a corruption commission that he himself had set up.

“What was the trial’s most pivotal moment?

“Todd Ransom Howe was the star prosecution witness for good reason. Once one of Albany’s better-known lobbyists, Mr. Howe — like Mr. Percoco — had a relationship with the Cuomo family dating back to Mario’s time in the Executive Mansion, working for the elder Mr. Cuomo as a traveling aide. He later served under Andrew Cuomo at the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, working as his deputy chief of staff. All the while, he was friendly with Mr. Percoco.

“Still, financial and professional problems soon flared up for Mr. Howe, including a 2003 bankruptcy and a felony theft charge in 2010 after he made a fake bank deposit.

“Prosecutors said Mr. Howe engineered the bribes paid to Mr. Percoco, and Mr. Howe pleaded guilty to eight felonies and was cooperating with prosecutors. But his star turn on the witness stand nearly backfired when he admitted in court that he had violated the terms of his cooperation deal by trying to defraud a credit card company. He was jailed midtrial, although he later returned to testify, and Mr. Percoco was convicted.

“Considering Mr. Howe’s notoriety, it is not surprising that the Cuomo administration has sought to downplay Mr. Howe’s connection to the current governor. But in August, The New York Times obtained nearly 350 pages of emails, showing that Mr. Howe had entree to the top levels of Mr. Cuomo’s administration for years and in the months leading up to Mr. Percoco’s arrest.

“But Mr. Howe’s most lasting legacy may be his — and Mr. Percoco’s — widespread use of a single word: ziti.

“Ziti?

“Other than the drama surrounding Mr. Howe, a sideline curiosity emerged during testimony and email exchanges showing that Mr. Percoco and Mr. Howe joked and fretted about bribes, which they had code-named “ziti,” a term used in the HBO mob drama “The Sopranos.”

“Typical was this kind of exchange, after a payment from a company to Mr. Percoco was slow to arrive.

“I have no ziti,” Mr. Percoco wrote. Another time, Mr. Percoco seemed more testy. “Where the hell is the ziti???” he wrote.

“On yet another occasion, Mr. Howe wrote to Mr. Percoco about “Operation Ziti Replenishment.”

“The pasta parlance almost became a running joke during the trial, but it also provided a powerful symbol for the prosecution to invoke in the complex case. In the government’s closing argument, a prosecutor, David Zhou, cited the emails from Mr. Percoco, who he said was “begging, requesting, demanding” ziti.

“He was demanding cash bribes,” Mr. Zhou said.

“And in the end, the jury agreed.“

The Klonsky brothers, Fred and Mike, have a radio show in Chicago, where they explore current issues.

On Friday, they will talk about Arne Duncan’s book and his belief that everyone but him is a liar.

“On this Friday’s Hitting Left with the Klonsky Brothers radio show/podcast we will be talking about the current state of school reform both here in Chicago and nationally.

“We were going to spend some time on Arne Duncan’s latest book about his tenure as Chicago schools’ CEO and then as Secretary of Education.

“We even invited him to join us.

“Through a spokesman, he declined.

“UIC Professor (retired) Bill Ayers will be in studio.

“I read his book. It’s short but not exactly a page turner.

“His first chapter is called “Lies, Lies Everywhere,” which is very appropriate for this book.

“I don’t want to ruin it for you but in this novella the protagonist did nothing wrong. He was never in doubt about his plans for fixing what we all broke.

“And Duncan provides no quantitative data to prove it.

“That was surprising to me.

“Here was a guy who argued most enthusiastically for data driven decision making and data based accountability.

“And then it ends up that there is none to be found in the far-from-epic story he weaves of battling the unions and suburban moms….

“Our show is Friday at 11am. 105.5fm in Chicago. Download the Lumpen Radio app for internet listening. Or listen to the Podcast on wifi or download.”

The Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) is the biggest online charter scandal in the nation, for now. The state poured more than $1 billion over 17 years into this for-profit enterprise, with no accountability until recently. After the state finally audited ECOT, it learned that there was no system in place to know whether students logged in, whether they participated in instruction, and commenced proceedings to recover at least $80 million. ECOT fought the state in court and lost. Rather than return the money, ECOT closed its doors.

Almost every Republican official running for statewide office received campaign funding from William Lager, the entrepreneur behind ECOT. Mike DeWine, the Republican candidate for governor, returned the ECOT money, but continues to accept contributions from other for-profit charter “schools.” Online charter schools everywhere have dismal records and are typically the worst-performing schools in every state where they are allowed.

One thing became obvious: the Republican elected officials who received Lager money showered ECOT with favors, including no-accountability, no oversight, and regular appearances as graduation speakers. It is striking how little money it cost Lager to buy their loyalty.

Bill Phillis, Ohio watchdog, writes here that ECOT got even more than the $1 billion that has been reported.

He writes:

Remember the Straight A Fund grants?

State Superintendent Dr. Richard Ross hatched the idea of passing out grants for school improvement via the Straight A Fund. Millions of dollars were distributed.

Incredibly, in fiscal year 2014, ECOT received a grant of $2,951,755 in Straight A Funds. (ECOT also received a huge grant of state money that was funneled through The Ohio State University.) ECOT over the years collected $130 million in federal funds. All these funds were in addition to the billion dollars ECOT took from school districts.

When ECOT received the $3 million Straight A Fund grant, at least some Ohio Department of Education (ODE) officials should have known that ECOT was collecting money for students not participating in the ECOT program.

The $3 million Straight A Fund grant to ECOT was for “A Personalized Learning Road Map for Every Math Student Grades 6-12…” During the 2015-2016 school year ODE found less than half of ECOT students were participating in any part of the ECOT program.

Obviously the grant didn’t reach all students-possibly not any students.

At this juncture in the ECOT saga, will there be any attempt to claw back any portion of state grants and federal dollars ECOT received? Did anyone at ODE monitor the ECOT expenditures of the federal and state grants?

Who is responsible for allowing ECOT to squander hundreds of millions of dollars?

William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 | ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| http://www.ohiocoalition.org

Bill Phillis also posted this question from a public education advocate:


Jeanne Melvin, President of Public Education Partners (PEP), reveals a Michigan charter advocate’s political campaign donations to Ohio politicians

The charter industry has birthed a network of political campaign donors devoted to the expansion of the industry. Such groups as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), All Children Matter, Inc., (formerly run by Betsy DeVos), Michigan Mackinac Center for Public Policy and Democrats for Education Reform, influence state and federal legislation in support of the charter industry.

The idea that charters would be operated by teachers and parents in the context of a school district was hijacked. A charter industry has evolved which has spawned a multi-billion dollar support group. Education policy is primarily driven by campaign contributions from charter operators and charter support groups.

To the Editor:

I respond to the Sept. 2 Dispatch.com article “Which side is right in political battle over ECOT blame?” Why is the demand for accountability concerning the largest scandal in our state’s history being called a political battle?

Speaking up for our children and their families, as well as Ohio taxpayers, should never be considered a partisan issue.

There is no excuse for allowing this $1 billion charter school fraud to continue for 18 years. Concerns were raised about the cozy relationship between charter school boards and their management companies in 2002, and our elected officials looked the other way to protect their campaign coffers.

If Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow’s structural setup had been the same since 2000, why is Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine finally taking legal action against William Lager? If it’s illegal now for Lager to direct taxpayer money to his companies, why wasn’t that problem handled years ago?

It’s nice to see that DeWine recently donated $12,533 in Lager contributions to charity, but sadly, he continues to take campaign cash from for-profit charter school companies.

On Aug. 31, his campaign received $10,000 from J. C. Huizenga, a member of the board of directors of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy “think tank.”

Huizenga is also one of the major funders of All Children Matter Inc., which still owes Ohio a $5.3 million election fine. The unpaid fine dates back to 2008, when All Children Matter – a group that lobbied for school-choice legislation and was run by Betsy DeVos – broke Ohio election law by funneling $870,000 in contributions through its nationwide PAC to its Ohio affiliate, according to the Ohio Elections Commission.

Huizenga’s company, National Heritage Academies, is affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council and sits on its Education Task Force. Through ALEC, corporations, ideologues and their politician allies follow an aggressive agenda to legalize spending public tax dollars to subsidize private K-12 education such as charter schools.

It’s time for Ohio voters to elect pro-public education candidates in November. Our children are counting on us.

Jeanne Melvin, Columbus

Huizenga’s charter chain, National Heritage Academies, operates for profit. He is a close associate of Betsy DeVos.

The National Assessment Governing Board, the federal agency in charge of the NAEP assessments, is aware that the achievement levels (Basic, Proficient, Advanced) are being misused. They are considering tinkering with the definitions of the levels. NAGB has invited the public to express its views. Below is my letter. If you want to weigh in, please write to NAEPALSpolicy@ed.gov and Peggy.Carr@ed.gov. Responses must be received by September 30.

My letter:


Dear NAEP Achievement-Level-Setting Program,

As a former member of the National Assessment Governing Board, I am keenly interested in the improvement and credibility of the NAEP program.

I am writing to express my strong support for a complete rethinking of the NAEP “achievement levels.” I urge the National Assessment Governing Board to abandon the achievement levels, because they are technically unsound and utterly confusing to the public and the media. They serve no purpose other than to mislead the public about the condition of American education.

The achievement levels were adopted in 1992 for political reasons: to make the schools look bad, to convey simplistically to the media and the public that “our schools are failing.”

The public has never understood the levels. The media and prominent public figures regularly report that any proportion of students who score below “NAEP proficient” is failing, which is absurd. The two Common Core-aligned tests (PARCC and SBAC) adopted “NAEP Proficient” as their passing marks, and the majority of students in every state that use these tests have allegedly “failed,” because the passing mark is out of reach, as it will always be.

The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) has stated clearly that “Proficient is not synonymous with grade level performance.” Nonetheless, public figures like Michelle Rhee (who was chancellor of the DC public schools) and Campbell Brown (founder of the website “The 74”) have publicly claimed that the proficiency standard of NAEP is the bar that ALL students should attain. They have publicly stated that American public education is a failure because there are many students who have not reached NAEP proficient.

In reality, there is only one state in the nation–Massachusetts–where as much as 50% of students have attained NAEP Proficient. No state has reached 100% proficient, and no state ever will.

When I served on NAGB for seven years, the board understood very well that proficient was a high bar, not a pass-fail mark. No member of the board or the staff expected that some day all students would attain “NAEP Proficient.” Yet critics and newspaper consistently use NAEP proficient as an indicator that “all students” should one day reach. This misperception has been magnified by the No Child Left Behind Act, which declared in law that all students should be “proficient” by the year 2014.

Schools have been closed, and teachers and principals have been fired and lost their careers and their reputations because their students were not on track to reach an impossible goal.

As you well know, panels of technical experts over the years have warned that the achievement levels were not technically sound, and that in fact, they are “fatally flawed.” They continue to be “fatally flawed.” They cannot be fixed because they are in fact arbitrary and capricious. The standards and the process for setting them have been criticized by the General Accounting Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and expert psychometricians.

Whether using the Angoff Method or the Bookmarking Method or any other method, there is no way to set achievement levels that are sound, valid, reliable, and reasonable. If the public knew that the standards are set by laypersons using their “best judgment,” they would understand that the standards are arbitrary. It is time to admit that the standard-setting method lacks any scientific validity.

When they were instituted in 1992, their alleged purpose was to make NAEP results comprehensible to the general public. They have had the opposite effect. They have utterly confused the public and presented a false picture of the condition and progress of American education.

As you know, when Congress approved the achievement levels in 1992, they were considered experimental. They have never been approved by Congress, because of the many critiques of their validity by respected authorities.

My strong recommendation is that the board acknowledge the fatally flawed nature of achievement levels. They should be abolished as a failed experiment.

NAGB should use scale scores as the only valid means of conveying accurate information about the results of NAEP assessments.

Thank you for your consideration,

Diane Ravitch
NAGB, 1997-2004
Ph.D.
New York University

ALSO:

The National Superintendents Roundtable wrote a letter.

I urge you to read this here.

The letter documents the many scholarly studies criticizing the NAEP achievement levels.

Here is an excerpt:

“NAGB hired a team of evaluators in 1990 to study the process involved in developing the three levels. A year later the evaluators were fired after their draft report concluded that the process “must be viewed as insufficiently tested and validated, politically dominated, and of questionable credibility.”

“In 1993, the U.S. General Accounting Office labeled the standard-setting process as “procedurally flawed” producing results of “doubtful accuracy.”

“In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences reported the achievement-level setting procedures were flawed: “difficult and confusing . . . internally inconsistent . . . validity evidence for the cut scores is lacking . . . and the process has produced unreasonable results.”

“Shortly after No Child Left Behind was signed into law in 2001, Robert Linn, past president of the American Educational Association and of the National Council on Measurement in Education, and former editor of the Journal of Educational Measurement called the “target of 100% proficient or above according to the NAEP standards is more like wishful thinking than a realistic possibility.”

“In 2007, researchers concluded that fully a third of high school seniors who completed calculus, the best students with the best teachers in the country, could not clear the proficiency bar. Moreover, they added, fully 50 percent of those who scored “basic” in twelfth grade math had achieved a bachelor’s degree (a proportion comparing favorably with four-year degree rates at public universities).

“The Buros Institute, named after the father of Mental Measurements Yearbook, criticized the lack of a validity framework for NAEP assessment scores in 2009 and recommending continuing “to explore achievement level methodologies.”

“Fully 30 percent of 12th-graders who completed calculus were deemed to be less than proficient, said a Brookings Institution scholar in 2016, a figure that jumped to 69 percent for pre-calculus students and 92 percent for students who completed trigonometry and Algebra I. These data “defy reason” and “refute common sense,” he concluded.

“Finally, the NAS study to which the proposed rule responds took note in 2016 of the “controversy and disagreement around the achievement levels, noting that Congress has insisted since 1994 that the achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis until on objective evaluation determined them to be “reasonable, reliable, valid, and informative to the public.”

“In the Roundtable’s judgment, such an objective evaluation has yet to be completed and a determination that the achievement levels are “reasonable, reliable, valid, and informative to the public” has yet to be seen.

“Linking studies conclude most students in most nations cannot clear “proficiency” bar

“The Roundtable points also to research studies dating from 2007 to 2018 indicating NAEP’s proficiency bar is beyond the reach of most students in most nations. When Gary Phillips of the American Institutes of Research (and former Acting Commissioner of NCES) asked how students in other nations would perform if their international assessment results were expressed in terms of NAEP achievement levels, his results were sobering. The results demonstrated that just three nations (Singapore, the Republic of Korea, and Japan) would have a majority of their students clear the NAEP bar in 8th-grade mathematics, while Singapore alone could meet that standard (more than 50% of students clearing the bar) in science.

“Subsequently Hambleton, Sireci, and Smith (2007) and also Lim and Sireci (2017) reached conclusions similar to those of Phillips.”

The fact is that “NAEP proficiency” is an impossible goal for most students. To recognize that does not lower standards. It acknowledges common sense.

Not every runner will ever run a four-minute mile. Some will. Most wont.

Florida has about 650 charter schools. Nearly half the charter schools in the state operate for profit. Charter schools on average do not get better results than public schools. Charter schools are rife with nepotism and conflicts of interest. The Leislature favors charter school expansion because many important legislators have ties to the charter industry and engage in self-dealing. Since 1998, 373 charters have closed, indicating that this is an unstable sector.

These are just a few of the conclusions of this important report about the toxic growth of charters in Florida.

The report urges serious review of the charter law. Otherwise the charter industry will continue to strip resources from public schools and create a parallel system that is wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt.

Here is a newspaper article about this report that summarizes it and includes responses from critics.

Mercedes Schneider reviews an exhaustive report by Richard Phelps about the origins, policies, and practices of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

I approach this topic with caution because I was a founding board member of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Institute. I was a close friend of Checker Finn, until I broke ranks and turned against the conservative activism in which TBF is a prominent actor. I don’t say bad things about Checker or Mike Petrilli. But I don’t agree with them, I think they are doing immeasurable damage to public education, and I regret that they lack the ability to be self-critical or reflective. When I was on the board, I strongly opposed the decision to accept funding from the Gates Foundation. I said it would compromise TBF’s independence. I was right. I opposed the board’s decision to become a charter authorizer in Ohio, where TBF is technically located. I thought that a think tank should not be a charter authorizer. That was well before I took issue with the whole conservative package of standards, testing, accountability, and choice.

Read the entire Phelps’ report.

Phelps raises a serious issue of “donor intent” and whether it was honored. The TBF Funds were intended by their owner to be used strictly for charitable purposes, Phelps writes, never to benefit any individual nor to influence legislation. When I was a member of the board, I was unaware of these restrictions. Mrs. Thelma Fordham Pruett’s lawyer was Checker Finn’s father. He was chairman of the board of the TBF foundation. He decided that the funds—about $35 Million—were not restricted, and he turned them over to his son, who became CEO of the new foundation and used the funds to promote a highly political agenda of education reform. The Fordham Institute has led the way in advancing privatization by charters and vouchers in Ohio. Nationally, it was and is a leading voice in promoting the Common Core standards. Gates paid millions of dollars to TBF both to evaluate the Common Core and to advocate for it.

This is a very troubling report.

Education International, which represents teachers unions around the world, sent out notice of a disturbing new development. International groups have determined to introduce Marley forces and payment for test scores as their response to educational needs in Africa and the Middle East. The Business-School graduates discovered a “crisis” that has existed since time began: children in impoverished countries are not getting a decent education—or, in some cases, no education at all. Yes, it is outrageous. Why are these great minds not using their brainpower to promote economic development? Asia is booming. Why not transfer some lessons learned to reduce poverty and create good jobs, rather than bring in the hedge funds and social impact investors to monetize education?

Angelo Gavrielatos of Educational International writes:

A new financing facility, the Education Outcomes Fund (EOF) for Africa and the Middle East is in development – with plans to become operational in the coming year. The fund commercialises and commodifies education, using tax-payer aid budgets to support private actors and investors to profit from education provision. Similar funds are being developed targeting India and Latin America.

EI responds

EI has responded directly to the EOF and publicly.

Mobilisation of Member Organisations

Education International is mobilising our Member Organisations in potentially targeted countries, which include Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Morocco, Nigeria, Palestine, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, recommending that they take action to pressure their governments not to engage with the EOF.

What is the EOF and how does it work?

EOF is an initiative of the International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity (the Education Commission) and the Global Steering Group for Impact Investment (GSG).

As a so-called innovation in education financing, the fund aims to raise $1 billion in development impact bonds (DIBs). DIBs work by employing investment capital to pay services, in this case education provision or education related services, offered by private actors in Africa and the Middle East. If ‘outcomes targets’ are met by the service providers, investors and providers receive a return, financed in part by bilateral donors through national aid budgets.

Putting private actors in the driving seat, disregarding democracy
EOF disregards democratic governance of education by choosing to directly fund private education providers rather than strengthening public systems through the elected national government. Giving investors control and influence over their investments is given precedent over governments’ sovereignty to define their own priorities.

What is more, as reporting systems for outcomes are geared to the needs of private funders, it becomes more difficult for educators, their unions and the broader community to hold their government to account to fulfil their obligation to provide quality education for all.

Funding outcomes narrows education
The EOF argues that its model’s strength lies in the fact that it will only pay for outcomes achieved. However, results-based financing actually negatively distorts quality teaching and learning processes by focusing on narrow outcomes rather than the development of the whole child.

With funding based on students’ test score outcomes, teachers are encouraged to teach to the test. Furthermore, results-based financing creates perverse incentives to invest in short-term gains rather than long term system strengthening. Outcomes in education are not immediate, but take time to manifest, such as its contribution to social, cultural, democratic and economic development.

Apart from the fact that the commodification of education by incentivising private providers and investors by profit-making is highly unethical and in disregard of the right to education, there is no substantial evidence of DIBs in the education sector.

Outcomes bonds leave the vulnerable behind
Importantly, a quest for outcomes and the involvement of profit-making organisations in the education sector leads to the further marginalisation of the most vulnerable groups in society. Evidence shows, when funding depends on test scores, private actors’ student selection processes can discriminate against less able students or alternatively encourage certain students not to participate in tests.

In clear contravention of the global commitment made through SDG4 to leave no-one behind, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, students from minority groups, refugees, students with disabilities or special needs and students living in remote areas lose out.

Proliferation of education privatisation and marketisation

To achieve SDG4, public systems must be strengthened and education must be universally embraced as a human right and a public good, not a market commodity.

Education financing must be sustainable and predictable, there are no shortcuts. It is only through well-funded public education that we will achieve quality education for all, not through attempting to establish new finance mechanisms that undermine the right to education.

Rather than strengthening public systems in regions where increased public financing for education is desperately needed, EOF will finance non-state actors, including for-profit companies and so-called ‘low-fee’ private schools that charge poor families for education of questionable quality.

‘Prime contractors’ will be commissioned by EOF to lead ‘whole-community based interventions’, suggesting that the fund will operate as a massive market creation scheme. Public-private partnerships will also be supported, with Partnership Schools for Liberia (PSL), Liberia’s disastrous experiment with outsourcing education to private providers, held up as a model.

Education is a public responsibility. The SDGs are about assuming those responsibilities. They are essential to the future and cannot be contracted out or sacrificed to the market. And, yes, they require political will to ensure a sufficient and sustainable source of public funding. We cannot rely on charity or the private sector.

If we believe that all children, regardless of their background or circumstances, regardless of the community, country or continent in which they live have a right to quality education, governments and the international community must invest in the expansion and strengthening of quality, free, universally accessible public education.
More information

Education Outcomes Fund (EOF) for Africa and the Middle East: Is it a Game Changer? by Keith M Lewin, Emeritus Professor of International Development and Education, University of Sussex, provides a detailed critique of the EOF.

Angelo Gavrielatos
Project Director – EI

Angelo Gavrielatos​
Project Director
Email: Angelo.Gavrielatos@ei-ie.org
Tel: +32 2 224 06 11
Fax: +32 2 224 06 06
5 bd du Roi Albert II | 1210 Brussels | BELGIUM
http://www.ei-ie.org

The Washington Post wrote this story about Mark Judge, the friend of Judge Brett Kavanaugh identified by Dr. Christine blasey Ford.

A quote from a playwright runs alongside the family photos on Mark Judge’s page in his high school yearbook: “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.”

Judge’s yearbook entry appears one page before the bio of his classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, federal judge and Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. Both men graduated in 1983 — a year after they allegedly locked a girl inside a bedroom at a house party, where she says a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to strip her while a similarly drunken Judge watched and laughed.

Both men have denied the accusation, which Christine Blasey Ford went public with this week in The Washington Post. A lawyer for Judge said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he has “no memory of this alleged incident.” Judge previously told the New York Times that such behavior would be wildly out of character for the Catholic-raised-and-educated boys who went to Georgetown Prep in the early ’80s.

What Judge has written in his career as a journalist and author is another matter.

In two memoirs, Judge depicted his high school as a nest of debauchery where students attended “masturbation class,” “lusted after girls” from nearby Catholic schools and drank themselves into stupors at parties. He has since renounced that lifestyle and refashioned himself as a conservative moralist — albeit one who has written about “the wonderful beauty of uncontrollable male passion.”

Judge credits Georgetown Prep as the place he learned to write, even as he blames it for sending him down the path to alcoholism and immorality.

He was caption editor for his yearbook, which included lines like “Ebony and Ivory” beneath a photo of a white and a black student, and “Do these guys beat their wives?” beneath a group photo of several boys.

In his 2005 memoir, “God and Man at Georgetown Prep,” he wrote that he co-published the school’s underground student newspaper in his senior year, dedicating it largely to documenting the school’s party scene. One issue pictured a music teacher at a bachelor party “chugging a beer, surrounded by a group of us with raised mugs, sitting down while being entertained by the stripper.”

Judge never wrote about any sexual violence at those parties, nor did he mention Kavanaugh attending any. But Judge’s 1997 memoir, “Wasted,” references a “Bart O’Kavanaugh” character who passes out drunk and throws up in a car.

In Judge’s telling, it took him years to realize the error of his high school ways. He eventually got sober, rediscovered Catholicism and briefly took a teaching job at Georgetown University.

Academia didn’t suit Judge, apparently. He left the school in the mid-90s and wrote his first column for the Weekly Standard about his experience there:

“I saw course descriptions requiring students to read comic books and watch the feminist film Thelma and Louise,” he wrote, “and academic papers proclaiming that all courses not named ‘Women’s Studies’ or ‘African-American (or other) Studies’ are ‘men’s studies . . . white-defined, ethnocentric, and implicitly racist.’ ”

Judge has written dozens of columns in the decades since, including several for this newspaper. Femininity, masculinity and sexuality are perennial themes. He has written that disposable razors are too feminine, that former president Barack Obama is practically a woman, and that gay men have infiltrated the priesthood.

He has also written repeatedly about his thoughts on sexual violence, which might make him an interesting character witness if Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh result in a prolonged public investigation.

In general, Judge has been unsparing of men accused of assault, including the conservative Senate candidate Roy Moore, and his condemnation of male aggression sometimes bleeds into critiques on women’s behavior, as when he wrote last year for Acculturated:

“There’s never any excuse to rape, a crime that I think is almost akin to murder because the rapist kills a part of the human soul. And yet what women wear and their body language also send signals about their sexuality.”

Two years earlier, in an ode to “sexy” pulp novels, Judge lamented “social justice warriors” who confuse rape with innocent demonstrations of masculinity. He wrote then of “an ambiguous middle ground, where the woman seems interested and indicates, whether verbally or not, that the man needs to prove himself to her.”

“If that man is any kind of man, he’ll allow himself to feel the awesome power, the wonderful beauty, of uncontrollable male passion,” Judge continued. To illustrate his point, he linked to a scene from the 1981 film “Body Heat,” in which the hero forcibly breaks into a woman’s home and is rewarded with a kiss.