Archives for the month of: May, 2019
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

North Carolina: Voucher Program is Unaccountable, Nontransparent

By dianeravitch
May 13, 2019 //
7

 

Stuart Egan writes that members of the General Assembly seek adjustments to the state’s voucher program to make it even less transparent and less accountable than at present. 

The General Assembly has committed to spend nearly $1 billion on this program by 2026-2027 even though the schools that get the vouchers have no standards for academics or for teacher qualifications.

93% of the voucher schools are sectarian.

In 2018, a study hailed academic gains but critics (including the editorial board of the state’sleading newspaper) quickly pointed out that the study oversampled established Catholic schools, which are a small fraction of the voucher schools. A review of the NC study by the National Education Policy Center found it to be so methodologically flawed as to be useless.

Ever since the Tea Party fringe of the Republican Party took control of the General Assembly, its leaders have been determined to shift funding to charter schools and vouchers for religious schools.

As in Florida, the politicians believe in tough scrutiny of public schools and no scrutiny at all for voucher schools.

Categories Accountability, Funding, North Carolina, Vouchers

Bob Shepherd: A Devil’s Dictionary of Reformish

By dianeravitch
May 13, 2019 //
50

 

Bob Shepherd—teacher, author, editor—is writing a dictionary of a new language called “Reformish.” Here is the current version. 

Categories Education Reform

David Weigel On Kentucky: Don’t Mess with Teachers

By dianeravitch
May 12, 2019 //
6

 

David Weigel wrote this in the Washington Post. I could not find a link. A great story about the odoriferous Gov. Matt Bevin, scourge of teachers:

 

SHELBYVILLE, Ky. — On Friday night, the three leading Democrats in the race for governor of Kentucky stood under a portrait of Colonel Sanders to answer their state’s biggest political question. Who could beat Gov. Matt Bevin, the Republican who had been making their lives miserable?

“I got in this race because of Matt Bevin’s agenda,” Rocky Adkins, the Democratic leader in the state House, told the hundred Shelby County Democrats who’d gathered in a replica of one of Sanders’s homes.

“We absolutely must beat Matt Bevin this fall, and if there’s one thing I know how to do, it’s beat this governor,” said Andy Beshear, the state’s attorney general, referring to a run of successful lawsuits.

“I’m running for governor not to beat Matt Bevin, though it’s a hell of a fringe benefit,” said Adam Edelen, a former state auditor turned solar-energy entrepreneur. “I am running for the opportunity to build a modern Kentucky.”

Bevin, whose years-long battles with teachers and public-sector unions has made him wildly unpopular, is seen as vulnerable despite his party’s political dominance in the state. He has been tied up in court over an attempt to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients and over bipartisan efforts to ban abortion; he earned the wrong kind of national attention after speculating that a teacher’s strike led to a child’s death. He’s facing a primary challenge from Robert Goforth, a state legislator who says Bevin has squandered his opportunities; at the same time, he has presided over Republican gains that replaced a Democratic state House with a GOP supermajority.

Lesson: Teachers are popular. Bevin is not.

Categories Accountability, Kentucky, Teachers

Chris Hughes: It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

By dianeravitch
May 12, 2019 //
15

Chris Hughes co-founded Facebook with Mark Zuckerberg. He is no longer part of the company but left with a considerable fortune. For a time, he was publisher of The New Republic. In this essay, which appeared in The New York Times, he says again and again that he really likes his old friend Mark. Great guy. A good, kind person. But dear friend Mark has too much power, and no one should have that much power.

Here is an excerpt.

America was built on the idea that power should not be concentrated in any one person, because we are all fallible. That’s why the founders created a system of checks and balances. They didn’t need to foresee the rise of Facebook to understand the threat that gargantuan companies would pose to democracy. Jefferson and Madison were voracious readers of Adam Smith, who believed that monopolies prevent the competition that spurs innovation and leads to economic growth.

A century later, in response to the rise of the oil, railroad and banking trusts of the Gilded Age, the Ohio Republican John Sherman said on the floor of Congress: “If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation and sale of any of the necessities of life. If we would not submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of trade with power to prevent competition and to fix the price of any commodity.” The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlawed monopolies. More legislation followed in the 20th century, creating legal and regulatory structures to promote competition and hold the biggest companies accountable. The Department of Justice broke up monopolies like Standard Oil and AT&T.

For many people today, it’s hard to imagine government doing much of anything right, let alone breaking up a company like Facebook. This isn’t by coincidence.

Starting in the 1970s, a small but dedicated group of economists, lawyers and policymakers sowed the seeds of our cynicism. Over the next 40 years, they financed a network of think tanks, journals, social clubs, academic centers and media outlets to teach an emerging generation that private interests should take precedence over public ones. Their gospel was simple: “Free” markets are dynamic and productive, while government is bureaucratic and ineffective. By the mid-1980s, they had largely managed to relegate energetic antitrust enforcement to the history books.

This shift, combined with business-friendly tax and regulatory policy, ushered in a period of mergers and acquisitions that created megacorporations. In the past 20 years, more than 75 percent of American industries, from airlines to pharmaceuticals, have experienced increased concentration, and the average size of public companies has tripled. The results are a decline in entrepreneurship, stalled productivity growth, and higher prices and fewer choices for consumers.

The same thing is happening in social media and digital communications. Because Facebook so dominates social networking, it faces no market-based accountability. This means that every time Facebook messes up, we repeat an exhausting pattern: first outrage, then disappointment and, finally, resignation….

Facebook has earned the prize of domination. It is worth half a trillion dollars and commands, by my estimate, more than 80 percent of the world’s social networking revenue. It is a powerful monopoly, eclipsing all of its rivals and erasing competition from the social networking category. This explains why, even during the annus horribilis of 2018, Facebook’s earnings per share increased by an astounding 40 percent compared with the year before. (I liquidated my Facebook shares in 2012, and I don’t invest directly in any social media companies.)…

The vibrant marketplace that once drove Facebook and other social media companies to compete to come up with better products has virtually disappeared. This means there’s less chance of start-ups developing healthier, less exploitative social media platforms. It also means less accountability on issues like privacy.

Just last month, Facebook seemingly tried to bury news that it had stored tens of millions of user passwords in plain text format, which thousands of Facebook employees could see. Competition alone wouldn’t necessarily spur privacy protection — regulation is required to ensure accountability — but Facebook’s lock on the market guarantees that users can’t protest by moving to alternative platforms….

Hughes is especially concerned about Zuckerberg’s “unilateral” power over the speech and expression of two billion people. A fine of $5 Billion is a slap on the wrist. When facing a threat of a fine that large, Facebook’s stock value went up by $30 billion.

Hughes has two recommendations:

First, that Facebook be broken up by compelling it to divest itself of WhatsApp and Instagram.

Second, that the federal government create a regulatory agency to oversee tech companies and assure consumer privacy.

In normal times, policymakers in D.C. might listen and consider such a bold proposal. But these days, given a federal administration dedicated to deregulating everything, Hughes’ ideas will have to wait for new leadership.

 

Categories Accountability, Competition, Deregulation, Education Reform, Media, Technology

David Cole on the Mueller Report

By dianeravitch
May 12, 2019 //
51

 

David Cole is National Legal Director of the ACLU.

He wrote the best, most incisive analysis of the Mueller Report, describing precisely what it found. The report is an indictment in all but name, and he explains why.

The Report, he writes,

lays out in meticulous detail both a blatantly illegal effort by Russia to throw the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump and repeated efforts by President Trump to end, limit, or impede Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference. Trump’s efforts included firing or attempting to fire those overseeing the investigation, directing subordinates to lie on his behalf, cajoling witnesses not to cooperate, and doctoring a public statement about a Trump Tower meeting between his son and closest advisers and a Russian lawyer offering compromising information on Hillary Clinton.

Attorney General William Barr, who has shown himself to be exactly the kind of presidential protector Trump wanted Jeff Sessions to be, did his best to whitewash the report. Almost four weeks before it was released to the public, Barr wrote a four-page letter to Congress purporting to summarize its findings…Barr took Mueller’s words out of context and omitted all mention of the damning evidence that courses through the report….

The Mueller report did not address “collusion,” a term that has no legal definition, but the narrower question of criminal conspiracy. It found no evidence that Trump campaign officials conspired with the Russians’ disinformation campaigns or hacking of computers belonging to the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. But it describes extensive contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians, many of which Trump campaign officials lied about. And it finds substantial evidence both “that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.” Russian intelligence agency hackers targeted Hillary Clinton’s home office within five hours of Trump’s public request in July 2016 that the Russians find her deleted e-mails. And WikiLeaks, which was in close touch with Trump advisers, began releasing its trove of e-mails stolen by the Russians from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta one hour after the Access Hollywood tape in which Trump bragged about assaulting women was made public in October 2016…

Mueller found “sweeping and systematic” intrusions by Russia in the presidential campaign, all aimed at supporting Trump’s election…

If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches.

The report establishes beyond doubt that a foreign rival engaged in a systematic effort to subvert our democracy…Mueller’s report shows that Trump’s concern was not for American democracy, but for saving his own skin.

The results of Mueller’s meticulous investigation, Cole writes, “are devastating for Trump.”

What lies ahead?

Cole thinks that impeachment is impossible, given the servility of the Senate Republicans, whose fear of Trump outweighs their oath of office. What remains is an unending series of investigations leading up to the 2020 elections. The voters will decide what kind of government and what kind of leadership we want.

 

Categories Education Reform

Did Success Academy Violate This Child’s Rights?

By dianeravitch
May 12, 2019 //
13

Chalkbeat reports that a parent has filed a federal complaint against Success Academy for releasing her daughter’s records to the media.

A former Success Academy parent filed a federal privacy complaint Thursday claiming the charter network violated her daughter’s rights by releasing her education records to a reporter, including notes from psychologists and her special education learning plan.

The complaint — which is unlikely to result in consequences for Success — comes in response to a Chalkbeat story published Saturday about Jazmiah Vasquez, a seven-year-old student with autism who has not been in school for a year and a half.

Lisa Vasquez, the student’s mother, claimed that Success Academy Prospect Heights, the last school Jazmiah attended, effectively pushed her out by repeatedly calling home about behavioral issues, threatening to call child services, and sending her back to kindergarten after she started first grade.

In response to questions from Chalkbeat about those allegations, Success officials provided detailed records of Jazmiah’s time at the city’s largest charter network, including contemporaneous notes from multiple educators and psychologists, progress reports, and a copy of Jazmiah’s individualized education program, a document that lays out students’ special education needs and services….

Success officials defended their disclosure of student records on the grounds that parents implicitly waive their rights if they go public with their complaints about a school.

An expert quoted in the article disagreed that the parent had waived her rights by filing a complaint and going public. 

Apparently FERPA is toothless since no school has ever been sanctioned by loss of federal funds for violating the privacy rights of students. 

Categories Accountability, Education Reform, Harlem Success Academy, Privacy and Privacy Rights

Peter Greene, Van Schoales: Education “Reform” Is Dead, but Zombie Ideas Persist

By dianeravitch
May 12, 2019 //
41

Peter Greene, retired teacher (thirty-nine years in the classroom and blogger extraordinaire) and Van Schoales (Colorado reformer) agree: education reform as we know it now is over.

Greene reminds us (as if we need reminding) that not so long ago, charter schools were considered a bipartisan reform; today, with Donald Trump and Betsy DeVos singing the praises of charter schools, there is a widespread recognition that charter schools are a big step on the path to privatization. First charters, then vouchers.

Van Schoales participated in the reform ferment in Colorado, which consumed much money and energy and produced very little. Schoales writes:

The education reform movement as we have known it is over. Top-down federal and state reforms along with big-city reforms have stalled. The political winds for education change have shifted dramatically. Something has ended, and we must learn the lessons of what the movement got right—and wrong.

The era of inspiration, edicts, and coercion from Washington to improve our public schools is in the past. The Every Student Succeeds Act is a paper tiger with no new funds or accountability for results. The U.S. Department of Education under Betsy DeVos has dismantled efforts to push states to improve school systems while tainting all education reform with a far-right agenda for vouchers as it defunds public education. Yet, a growing number of high school graduates are not prepared to work or to continue their education.

The era of the nontraditional “no excuses” urban superintendents is finished. Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, and Tom Boasberg have all moved on. There are few comparable replacements. The vision of a radically transformed public education system with virtual schools, new charter models, and online personalization has crashed on the shores of reality.

He continues to have some hope for “portfolio districts” like Indianapolis and San Antonio but it is only a matter of time until he realizes that they too are a mirage, just shifting students from public schools to charters changes nothing.

Peter Greene understands that all the shiny promises have failed to produce the transformation that was supposed to happen. It didn’t.

After twenty years, almost every trick in the education reform tool box has been tried, including charters and choice. When your product has failed, you have more than just a branding problem, and for the nominally lefty-tilted education reformers, the current administration provides none of the protective cover that Obama and Duncan did.

Van Schoales says it is time to listen to those closest to the problems—teachers, principals, students, families, and community leaders—to build a movement that is focused on preparing most or all of our students for the world that they live in, that promotes lasting change. 

Frankly, for reformers, that is a new idea, because they have spent twenty years imposing mayoral control, state control, so as NOT to listen to anyone but themselves.

Peter Greene has another idea, not so very different from that of Van Schoales:

Instead of asking, “How can we convince more left-leaning folks to support the privatization of public education,” maybe progressives could ask, “If charters and choice really aren’t the answer, what are some better ways to improve U.S. public education?” Maybe someone could build a coalition around that.

Unfortunately, the billionaires do not know as much as either Greene or Schoales. They are still dishing out hundreds of millions to professional “reformers” to create groups like the City Fund ($200 million on the day it opened) to continue promoting charter schools in a dozen or so urban districts. The Walton Family Foundation will spend hundreds of millions to prop up failing charter schools. Betsy DeVos will have another $400 million to hand out to well-funded corporate charter chains next year. Charles Koch has announced that he will pick five unlucky cities to target as “low-hanging fruit” for his dreams of voucherizing everything in sight. And legislatures like those in Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee are still diverting money to voucher programs, even though there is no hope that they will provide better education.

Reform as we have known it is dead, but the zombie continues to terrorize our cities, even our suburbs and rural districts.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization, Vouchers

Gary Rubenstein: Texas Pays TFA $5.5 Million a Year for 400 Recruits

By dianeravitch
May 12, 2019 //
9

This is a shocker.

Gary Rubenstein reports that the state of Texas pays Teach for America $5.5 million a year for 400 recruits. 

This is a sweet deal for TFA but a bad deal for Texas taxpayers.

He writes:

”TFA provides the state with a report that makes it seem like they are doing a lot with this money, but considering that they recruit about 400 corps members into Texas and only 85% of them even finish their two year commitment, this is a big waste of money.  This is about $15,000 per recruit, and that doesn’t include whatever finders fees the districts themselves pay.”

Categories Education Reform

Tennessee: The FBI Is Investigating to See Whether Voucher Vote Was Bought

By dianeravitch
May 11, 2019 //
33

Tennessee passed Governor Bill Lee’s voucher bill by one vote, and the FBI is investigating whether the change of that vote at the last minute was the result of an illegal bribe. 

At the time, it appeared that the incentive for the one lawmaker was a promise not to offer vouchers in HIS district.

FBI agents have begun interviewing Tennessee lawmakers about whether any improper incentives were offered to pass Gov. Bill Lee’s school vouchers bill in the state House, NewsChannel 5 Investigates has learned.

That vouchers legislation narrowly passed the state House last month on a 50-48 vote. The vote was initially deadlocked 49-49, and House Speaker Glen Casada kept the vote open for 40 minutes until he convinced Rep. Jason Zachary, R-Knoxville, to switch his vote.

NewsChannel 5 has learned that agents are interested in discovering whether anything of value – such as campaign contributions – were offered by anyone in return for votes.

I must confess that my first reaction to this story was ho-hum; I couldn’t believe that the FBI is investigating whether state legislators vote because of incentives, since we often see them doing it in the open. And then there was the FBI raid on Gulen offices in Ohio, where they carried away boxes of papers. And nothing more was heard of it. And then there was the federal indictment of Ben Chavis of the American Indian Model Charter Schools in Oakland, who was alleged to have diverted $3.8 million from the schools’ bank account to his own businesses, as well as using federal charter funding to pay himself rent; and those charges were recently dropped on grounds that there was no material damage.

Categories Accountability, Tennessee, Vouchers

Rhode Island: Warwick Schools Engage in “Lunch Shaming” and Donations Pour In

By dianeravitch
May 11, 2019 //
22

School officials in Warwick, Rhode Island, decided to crack down on students who had not paid their lunch bills; they announced that any student in arrears would get a cold sandwich, not a hot lunch. The choice was either peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or–for those allergic to peanut butter–sunbutter and jelly sandwiches. The story of “lunch shaming” got national media attention, and money began to pour in to pay the students’ lunch bills. The district quickly reversed course as the story went viral on national news programs, but the chair of the school board worried that children were not learning responsibility when other people paid their bills. A local restaurant owner whose daughter attends the public schools offered $4,000, but the district rejected her offer. Then the offers got bigger. The owner of the Chobani Yogurt company offered nearly $50,000, actor Alex Baldwin and Michael Moore said they would chip in, a CBS current affairs show offered $40,000. Someone in Florida pledged $10,000.

The district is trying to figure out how to accept donations. Maybe they could learn how to accept philanthropy by consulting with charter schools, who have mastered this issue.

Or maybe the district could build into its budget a free breakfast and hot lunch for every child, regardless of economic status, and avoid future embarrassment.

 

 

Categories Accountability, Rhode Island
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »