Archives for the year of: 2023
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Elon Musk’s Takeover of Twitter Is a Financial Mess

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2023 //
8

Elon Musk took control of Twitter a year ago. As this article in Ars Technica reports, the company has seen a significant drop in advertising revenues and user engagement.

Musk seems to have bought Twitter on a whim, then cut the staff from 7,500 to 1,500, sharply reduced content moderation, changed Twitter’s brand name to X, and welcomed the return of misinformation and conspiracy theorists.

Here are a few tidbits from the article:

One year after Elon Musk’s $44 billion purchase of Twitter, which he completed on October 27, 2022, after months of legal drama, the social media firm that Musk renamed “X” is on shaky financial ground.

Musk has expressed ambitions to transform X into an “everything app” that includes a digital payments platform and audio and video calling. He told employees that, despite massive cuts eliminating most of Twitter’s pre-Musk workforce, he sees “a clear but difficult path” to a future valuation of more than $250 billion…

X’s August 2023 usage was 91 million hours per day, down 13 percent year over year, according to the Sensor Tower report. X’s August 2023 usage was also down 6 percent since July 2023.

By contrast, Sensor Tower said Facebook’s August 2023 usage was 1.31 billion hours per day, up 10 percent compared to August 2023. Unlike X’s performance from July to August, Facebook usage did not drop month over month, according to Sensor Tower.

On the plus side for X, the Threads app launched in July by Facebook owner Meta doesn’t seem ready to surpass X any time soon, if ever. Threads’ August 2023 usage was 500,000 hours per day, down 62 percent month over month, according to Sensor Tower.

X’s daily active users were down 9 percent in August 2023 when compared to August 2022, according to Sensor Tower. It was the ninth consecutive month of year-over-year declines in that statistic.

Similarweb, another research firm, reported last week that usage is “down by every measure” in the year since Musk bought Twitter.

“In September, global web traffic to twitter.com was down 14 percent year-over-year, and traffic to the ads.twitter.com portal for advertisers was down 16.5 percent,” Similarweb wrote. “In the US, where about a quarter of twitter.com’s web traffic originates, September traffic was down 19 percent. The trend was similar, if not quite as pronounced in other countries: -11.6 percent in the UK, -13.4 percent in France, -17.9 percent in Germany, and -17.5 percent in Australia…”

The drops in daily users and usage seem to have been dwarfed by declines in advertising, the company’s primary source of cash despite Musk’s attempts to boost subscription revenue. Advertising problems have likely helped lower X’s overall value, which Fidelity estimated in April at $15 billion—a third of what Musk paid…

Business Insider reported this week that an “overwhelming majority of the world’s biggest-spending advertisers have stopped advertising on X following Elon Musk’s acquisition of the company.” The report cited data from Ebiquity, a marketing consulting firm that works with 70 of the top 100 top-spending advertisers. Ebiquity “said that just two of its clients had purchased ads on X last month,” down from 31 brands in September 2022.

X’s US monthly ad revenue was down at least 55 percent year over year every month since Musk took over, according to data from analytics firm Guideline that was cited in a Reuters article. The biggest drop was 78 percent in December 2022. The year-over-year decline was 60 percent in August 2023, the last month data was available….

X Premium (formerly Twitter Blue), which comes with a blue checkmark and other features, costs $8 a month. Musk said last week that two new tiers will launch soon: “One is lower cost with all features, but no reduction in ads, and the other is more expensive, but has no ads,” he wrote. X has also been testing a $1 annual fee that new users would have to pay to access basic features.

So far, subscription revenue doesn’t seem to be meeting Musk’s lofty goals. As Bloomberg wrote this week, an “analysis from independent researcher Travis Brown estimates that 950,000 to 1.2 million people now pay for X’s $8 monthly premium service.” That amounts to less than 1 percent of users and no more than $120 million in annual revenue, not including app store fees from people who subscribe through Apple or Google.

“This is hardly a replacement for the ad revenue that Twitter relied on in the pre-Musk era—about $4.5 billion in its last full year as a public company,” Bloomberg wrote. “Meanwhile, many of X’s top advertisers, such as Mondelez International, Coca-Cola, IBM, and HBO, are spending less than they were before Musk took over, largely because of policies he’s implemented that have made the service more chaotic and unpredictable.”

Bloomberg quoted Sensor Tower research indicating that “X’s top five advertisers are [collectively] spending 67 percent less on ads than they did before the acquisition,” adding that “some large ad agencies have said they don’t plan to spend money on X at all.”

A chaotic first year

X’s finances are further complicated by an estimated $1.5 billion in annual interest payments stemming from the $13 billion in debt Musk used to fund the takeover. That debt hasn’t worked out for the seven banks that lent Musk $13 billion, which “currently expect to take a hit of at least 15 percent, or roughly $2 billion, when they sell the debt,” a Wall Street Journal report said.

“Bankers close to the deal say that Musk’s capricious management and a weakening advertising market could point to a junk-bond rating, a designation reserved for companies at higher risk of defaulting,” the report said.

Musk has apparently tried to save money by stiffing vendors and landlords, causing dozens of companies to sue X for unpaid bills. Given the costs of litigation and settlements, it’s not clear whether this strategy will save Musk money in the long run.

A chaotic first year indeed.

Categories Disruption, Media

Texas AFT to Senator Cornyn: Stop the Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in the Federal Charter Schools Program

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2023 //
4

The Network for Public Education sent out an alert, warning that several members of the U.S. Senate were proposing a bill to enrich the sponsors of privately-managed charter schools.

The Texas AFT answered that alert with an appeal to Senator Jon Cornyn.

Tell Sen. Cornyn: Do Not Support More Charter School Program Waste, Fraud

Eight U.S. senators (including Texas Sen. John Cornyn) introduced a bill last week that was clearly written with the help of the charter school lobby. The Empower Charter School Educators to Lead Act would allow billionaire-funded nonprofits operating as “state entities” to keep more of a cut when dispersing Charter School Program (CSP) grants. The bill would also allow these “state entities” to award up to $100,000 to would-be charter entrepreneurs, including religious organizations, to pre-plan a charter school before they have even submitted an application to an authorizer.

Our partners at the Network for Public Education (NPE) urge you to send a letter to your senator to oppose the charter lobby’s bill today.

As the NPE has documented, CSP planning grants have led to enormous waste and fraud. Millions of CSP dollars have gone to school entrepreneurs who never opened a school — a fact confirmed by the Department of Education and the Government Accountability Office. That is why the NPE and other public education advocates supported the addition of modest guardrails in 2022 that provided guidance on how and when planning grants could be spent.

Clearly, that did not sit well with the charter lobby, led by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, which persuaded these eight senators to make it even easier to get funding to pre-plan a school.

There’s more. This bill would also increase the funding “state entities” can keep for themselves when they disperse grants. That cut is already at 10%, and this bill would raise it to a whopping 15%. Contact Sen. Cornyn today. Stop the charter school lobby’s new attempts to fleece American taxpayers and undermine public schools.

STOP THE SCAM!

Categories Charter Schools, Education Industry, Ethics, Funding, Network for Public Education, Networkfor Public Education Action Fund, Texas, U.S. Department of Education, Unions

Nora DeLa Cour: Religious Charter Schools Corrupt the Charter idea

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2023 //
11

Nora De La Cour was a teacher who now writes about education with sharp insight.

She warns about the danger of religious charter schools in Jacobin:

A church-run charter school is on track to open in Oklahoma — publicly funded but run by the archdiocese. The arrival of religious charter schools is one more piece of evidence that public charter schools are not so public after all.

In early October, Georgia state senator Elena Parent coauthored an op-ed for the 74 entreating her fellow Democrats to recall their former support for charter schools. Decrying the GOP-backed private-school voucher schemespassing in state after state, Parent warns that these programs’ unfairness “does not mean Democrats should abandon discussion around school choice.” Rather, she argues, they must reenergize their own liberal vision of school choice, focused on bringing opportunities to underserved populations.

A decade ago it was easier to make this sort of pro–civil rights, liberal defense of charter schools (albeit ignoring the gathering evidence about who is harmedby charterization and the attendant defunding and closure of neighborhood schools). Today though, it’s overwhelmingly clear that charters, like other forms of school privatization, are among the Right’s primary tools for advancing a decidedly illiberal vision of free-market fundamentalism and Christian nationalism. And recent decisions from our radicalized Supreme Court have suggested that, legally speaking, charter schools may not be all that different from voucher-supported private schools.

One of the most glaring examples of this is St Isidore of Seville, a virtual Oklahoma Catholic school that, if it opens in 2024 as planned, will be the nation’s first church-run charter. The archdiocese of Oklahoma City intends to use this publicly funded statewide school “as a genuine instrument of the Church, a place of real and specific pastoral ministry,” complete with religiously motivated discrimination against protected groups of kids. It’s just one more example of how privatization makes fertile ground for the desecularization of America’s schools — and the erosion of students’ rights.

St Isidore of Vanishing Civil Rights

Weeks before the Supreme Court elevated religious free exercise over the Establishment Clause by ruling that Maine’s town tuitioning program could not bar private schools from putting taxpayer money to religious uses, attorney and leading education policy scholar Kevin Welner made a prediction: such an outcome in Carson v. Makin, he argued, would act as an invitation for church-run charter schools.

Sure enough, Oklahoma’s virtual charter board (with two new right-wing appointees) voted in June to grant a charter for St Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School (SISCVS), which will be operated by the archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the diocese of Tulsa. This month the board approved the school’s contract, bringing it one step closer to furthering the “evangelizing mission of the Church” on Oklahoma taxpayers’ dime. But the board’s chairman is currently refusing to sign the contract — demonstrating the high level of contention surrounding SISCVS within the conservative Bible Belt state.

A religious charter school runs afoul of both the Oklahoma Constitution and the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act — to say nothing of the US Constitution’s promise of church/state separation. While Oklahoma’s Republican governor Kevin Stitt has been among the school’s most avid cheerleaders (along with the state’s previous attorney general), current attorney general Gentner Drummond — also a Republican — has vehemently opposed SISCVS, asserting that “Christian nationalism is the movement that is giving oxygen to this attempt to eviscerate the Establishment Clause.”

In the SISCVS charter application, the archdiocese of Oklahoma City states that the school “will operate in harmony with faith and morals, including sexual morality, as taught and understood by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.” Instruction will assist parents in “forming and cultivating” children who believe, among other things, “that God created persons male and female,” and that if we “reject God’s invitation,” we will “end up in hell.”

In response to Drummond’s charge that the school appears intent on violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the archdiocese insists it is “committed to providing a school environment that is free from unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation” (emphasis added). But, emboldened by Supreme Court rulings subordinating antidiscrimination laws to religious free exercise, they suggest that these practices are lawful when they’re required by faith….

Public Schools Are the Only Public Schools

School-choice Democrats like Cory Booker, Barack Obama, and Arne Duncan mastered the contortionist art of pitching school privatization — which strips families of their right to democratically elected school boards — as “the civil rights issue of our time.” Publicly funded, privately managed charter schools, they argued, would increase opportunities for marginalized students, leveling an unfair playing field.

It was never true, and decades of research have shown us that charter schools don’t outperform their publicly managed counterparts — but they do drain funding from neighborhood schools attended by poor kids. Nevertheless, a sheen of “equity” and “opportunity” sparkled around bipartisan charter school initiatives in the Bush and Obama days of education reform.

But in the Trump era, Besty DeVos, a privatizer laser-focused on state-funded Christian education, made the school-choice brand feel icky to its D-column champions. While DeVos treated the federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) as “a slush fund for large charter chains,” Carol Burris and her team launched a series of reports documenting the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse the program was enabling. By the 2020 presidential primary it was clear that Democrats were looking to distance themselves from the charter movement, taking their cues from organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which called for a moratoriumon new charters in 2016.

Biden’s education department attempted to make good on a campaign promise to eliminate federal funding for for-profit charter schools (thanks in no small part to the work of Burris and NPE, who marshaled a grassroots network of public education advocates willing to take on the charter sector’s powerful Washington guardians). And while the department’s new CSP rules don’t go quite that far, they do make it much harder for profit seekers to cash in on the program. They also increase transparency and accountability for grantees, and set up requirements aimed at combating resegregation and federally financed “white-flight charters.” In Congress, the 2023 House Appropriations Bill supported these tighter rules and reduced CSP funding by $40 million, seemingly in recognition that the federal government caused grave harm by promoting reckless charter expansion.

Open the link and read the article in full.

Categories Charter Schools, Education Industry, Oklahoma, Religion

Paul Krugman: There Are No GOP Moderates in the House of Representatives

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2023 //
14

Maybe House Republicans got tired of not finding a new Speaker. Maybe they felt humiliated by their inability to agree on a leader. Every one of them finally agreed to endorse one of the most radical extremists in the House as their party’s leader. You know already that Mike Johnson is hostile to abortion and to gay rights. You know that he was a prominent leader in the effort to overturn Trump’s loss in 2020.

What you probably do not know is that Johnson is an extremist on economic issues as well. Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economics columnist for the New York Times, wants you to know that his views on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are also radical.

He writes:

There are no moderate Republicans in the House of Representatives.

Oh, no doubt some members are privately appalled by the views of Mike Johnson, the new speaker. But what they think in the privacy of their own minds isn’t important. What matters is what they do — and every single one of them went along with the selection of a radical extremist.

In fact, Johnson is more extreme than most people, I think even political reporters, fully realize.

Much of the reporting on Johnson has, understandably, focused on his role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Let me say, by the way, that the widely used term “election denial” is a euphemism that softens and blurs what we’re really talking about. Trying to keep your party in power after it lost a free and fair election, without a shred of evidence of significant fraud, isn’t just denial; it’s a betrayal of democracy.

There has also been considerable coverage of Johnson’s right-wing social views, but I’m not sure how many people grasp the depth of his intolerance. Johnson isn’t just someone who wants to legalize discrimination against L.G.B.T.Q. Americans and ban gay marriage; he’s on record as defending the criminalization of gay sex.

But Johnson’s extremism, and that of the party that chose him, goes beyond rejecting democracy and trying to turn back the clock on decades of social progress. He has also espoused a startlingly reactionary economic agenda.

Until his sudden elevation to speaker, Johnson was a relatively little-known figure. But he did serve for a time as chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group that devises policy proposals. And now that Johnson has become the face of his party, people really should look at the budget proposal the committee released for 2020 under his chairmanship.

For if you read that proposal carefully, getting past the often mealy-mouthed language, you realize that it calls for the evisceration of the U.S. social safety net — not just programs for the poor, but also policies that form the bedrock of financial stability for the American middle class.

Start with Social Security, where the budget calls for raising the retirement age — already set to rise to 67 — to 69 or 70, with possible further increases as life expectancy rises.

On the surface, this might sound plausible. Until Covid produced a huge drop, average U.S. life expectancy at age 65 was steadily rising over time. But there is a huge and growing gap between the number of years affluent Americans can expect to live and life expectancy for lower-income groups, including not just the poor but also much of the working class. So raising the retirement age would fall hard on less fortunate Americans — precisely the people who depend most on Social Security.

Then there’s Medicare, for which the budget proposes increasing the eligibility age “so it is aligned with the normal retirement age for Social Security and then indexing this age to life expectancy.” Translation: Raise the Medicare age from 65 to 70, then keep raising it.

Wait, there’s more. Most nonelderly Americans receive health insurance through their employers. But this system depends greatly on policies that the study committee proposed eliminating. You see, benefits don’t count as taxable income — but in order to maintain this tax advantage, companies (roughly speaking) must cover all their employees, as opposed to offering benefits only to highly compensated individuals.

The committee budget would eliminate this incentive for broad coverage by limiting the tax deduction for employer benefits and offering the same deduction for insurance purchased by individuals. As a result, some employers would probably just give their top earners cash, which they could use to buy expensive individual plans, while dropping coverage for the rest of their workers.

Oh, and it goes almost without saying that the budget would impose savage cuts — $3 trillion over a decade — on Medicaid, children’s health coverage and subsidies that help lower-income Americans afford insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

How many Americans would lose health insurance under these proposals? Back in 2017 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Donald Trump’s attempt to repeal Obamacare would cause 23 million Americans to lose coverage. The Republican Study Committee’s proposals are far more draconian and far-reaching, so the losses would presumably be much bigger.

So Mike Johnson is on record advocating policies on retirement, health care and other areas I don’t have space to get into, like food stamps, that would basically end American society as we know it. We would become a vastly crueler and less secure nation, with far more sheer misery.

I think it’s safe to say that these proposals would be hugely unpopular — if voters knew about them. But will they?

Actually, I’d like to see some focus groups asking what Americans think of Johnson’s policy positions. Here’s my guess, based on previous experience: Many voters will simply refuse to believe that prominent Republicans, let alone the speaker of the House, are really advocating such terrible things.

But they are and he is. The G.O.P. has gone full-on extremist, on economic as well as social issues. The question now is whether the American public will notice.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Cruelty, Disruption, Economy, Elections, Extremism, Funding, Republicans

Ohio: Lawyer from State AG Office Advised Both Sides in Blatant Conflict of Interest

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2023 //
1

The governor of Ohio is trying to take control of the state school board. They are too independent for Governor Mike DeWine’s taste because they are elected, not appointed by him. As an official body, the school board sued the state to block the takeover and was represented by the state Attorney General’s office. Unfortunately, their lawyer—it was discovered—was also advising the defense counsel. Their lawyer was “Chief Counsel and Ethics Officer for the Ohio Attorney General.” He will no longer be representing the state school board.

The Ohio Capital Journal reported:

An Ohio Attorney General lawyer for state school board members in their ongoing lawsuit to stop a massive transfer of power over K-12 education from the board to the governor’s office was found by the court to be giving legal advice to the defense counsel, also a member of the Attorney General’s Office.

Chief Counsel and Ethics Officer for the Ohio Attorney General Bridget Coontz has been disqualified from participating in the lawsuit anymore after sending an email on Oct. 3 that included legal advice to the counsel for defendants, Julie Pfeiffer, the section chief at the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, according to new court documents in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

“In the email, Coontz offered legal advice to Counsel Pfeiffer clearly related to this case,” Franklin County Common Please Court Judge Karen Held Phipps wrote in an order disqualifying Coontz on Monday. “Coontz offered legal advice to Counsel Pfeiffer, which was directly adverse to Plaintiffs (Christina) Collins and (Michelle) Newman, who Coontz represented in this case. … Public confidence in the outcome of this case requires that Coontz be disqualified from any further participation.”

Seven members of the Ohio State Board of Education originally filed a lawsuit against Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine on Sept. 19 in an attempt to block an overhaul of K-12 education that was included by lawmakers in the state’s two-year budget this summer. Judge Phipps issued the temporary restraining order Sept. 21. Coontz filed a motion on Sept. 27 to substitute the Attorney General as counsel for the original seven plaintiffs.

“Coontz assured the Court that there was no danger of a conflict-of-interest in this situation because the Office of the Attorney General maintained a complex screening process in order to eliminate any such conflict of interest,” Phipps wrote.

When a conflict comes up between Ohio Attorney General clients, an ethics screen is set up between the AG lawyers and is distributed to all attorneys and supervisors involved in the case, Phipps said Coontz explained to the court during an expedited briefing process…

But Coontz mistakenly sent an email to a recipient on the other side.

According to Judge Phipps, Coontz told the court the ethics screen “did not become necessary because she determined that a conflict of interest did not exist.”

“Coontz’s argument in this regard is absurd on its face,” Judge Phipps wrote. “The Court strongly disagrees that Coontz personally gets to determine when a conflict of interest has arisen. The main concern here is the appearance of impropriety, which is precisely what Coontz’s email created. … Accordingly, Coontz is hereby disqualified from any further participation in this matter.”

The lawsuit is trying to stop the Ohio Department of Education from transitioning to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, which would create a cabinet-level director position and put the department under the governor’s office.

Categories Accountability, Fraud, Ohio

Jan Resseger: Teachers Should Be Paid as Professionals

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2023 //
5

Jan Resseger lives in Ohio. She has spent her career as an advocate for social justice and educational equity. Her blog is a must-read. This column probes the growing gap in pay between teachers and other college graduates. It is ironic and pathetic that self-styled “reformers” like Bill Gates, Laurene Powell Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg are silent on the issue of teacher pay, but expend their resources to promote teacher evaluation, merit pay, innovation, and other dead ends. They know they have to pay for talent in their own organizations. Why not in schools?

She writes:

In our society, teaching is not a high status position. It used to be considered women’s work, probably still is by many people. How wonderful it would be if we had fully transcended the cruelty of the old joke: “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach; those who can’t teach, teach gym.” But we haven’t. I regularly hear legislators in my state explaining that if someone who knew what he was doing were put in charge, teachers would be forced to improve test scores immediately. The implication, of course, is that teaching is simply a matter of the production of test scores, and teachers don’t produce.

The tragedy of this kind of thinking is that the same teachers whom people attack and insult are the human beings to whom we trust the formation of our children. The opinion polls tell us that we handle this contradiction by learning to know, respect, and appreciate our own child’s teacher even as we fail to protest the barrage of attacks on teachers in general.

We forget to consider that teaching is a relentlessly hard job. Teachers work with masses of children and adolescents all day without much of a break. The pressure is relentless. Regents’ Professor of Education, Emeritus, at Arizona State University and the past president of both the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the Division of Educational Psychology of the American Psychological Association, David Berliner describes just some of the complexity of a teacher’s day:

“A physician usually works with one patient at a time, while a teacher serves 25, 30 or in places like Los Angeles and other large cities, they may be serving 35 or more youngsters simultaneously… (T)eachers have been found to make about .7 decisions per minute during interactive teaching… (A) researcher estimated that teachers’ decisions numbered about 1,500 per day. Decision fatigue is among the many reasons teachers are tired after what some critics call a short work day, forgetting or ignoring the enormous amount of time needed for preparation, for grading papers and homework, and for filling out bureaucratic forms and attending school meetings.”

Teachers know how to build trusting relationships with their students and to help students respect each other while they all engage with their academic work. One of the best writers about teaching , the late Mike Rose published my favorite definition of excellent teaching based on years of observing teachers in their classrooms: “Some of the teachers I visited were new, and some had taught for decades. Some organized their classrooms with desks in rows, and others turned their rooms into hives of activity. Some were real performers, and some were serious and proper. For all the variation, however, the classrooms shared certain qualities… The classrooms were safe. They provided physical safety…. but there was also safety from insult and diminishment…. Intimately related to safety is respect…. Talking about safety and respect leads to a consideration of authority…. A teacher’s authority came not just with age or with the role, but from multiple sources—knowing the subject, appreciating students’ backgrounds, and providing a safe and respectful space. And even in traditionally run classrooms, authority was distributed…. These classrooms, then, were places of expectation and responsibility…. Overall the students I talked to, from primary-grade children to graduating seniors, had the sense that their teachers had their best interests at heart and their classrooms were good places to be.”

In the introduction to her annual report on the teacher pay penalty, published last week by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Sylvia Allegretto acknowledges the challenges teachers face: “Teachers have one of the most consequential jobs in the country—they have the future of the U.S. in front of them every day. But teaching is becoming a less appealing career choice for new college graduates. Not only are levels of compensation low, but teaching is becoming increasingly stressful as teachers are forced to navigate battles over curriculum and COVID-19 related mandates as well as rising incidence of violence in schools. Low pay makes recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers difficult.

Here are Allegretto’s conclusions about the trend in teachers’ wages and compensation through 2022:

  • “The pay penalty for teachers—the gap between the weekly wages of teachers and college graduates working in other professions—grew to a record 26.4% in 2022, a significant increase from 6.1% in 1996.
  • “Although teachers tend to receive better benefits packages than other professionals do, this advantage is not large enough to offset the growing wage penalty for teachers.
  • “On average, teachers earned 73.6 cents for every dollar that other professionals made in 2022. This is much less than the 93.9 cents on the dollar they made in 1996.”

Allegretto explains: “Because public school teachers must attain at least a bachelor’s degree to teach in the U.S., this research compares teachers with college graduates working in other professions… Over the past two decades, the weekly wages and total compensation of public school teachers have fallen further and further behind… Recent high inflation has significantly reduced the average weekly wages of teachers but has had less of an effect on other college graduates… The erosion of relative weekly wages for teachers continued apace in 2022.” “Teachers generally receive a higher share of their total compensation as benefits than other professionals do, partially offsetting the weekly wage penalty.” But, “the benefits advantage for teachers has not been enough to offset the growing wage penalty.”

Inflation has been a significant factor recently: “From 2021 to 2022, real wages for teachers fell by a bit more than inflation (8.8% vs 8.1%), meaning that the lion’s share of the decline was due to inflation, not a large drop in nominal wages. Regardless, the buying power of teachers took a big hit…. This dynamic is likely explained (at least in part) because teachers’ wages are often set by long-term union contracts and dependent on government budgets. In contrast, the private sector can often respond more quickly to improving or deteriorating economic conditions by adjusting wages. Other college graduates were able to garner an increase in nominal wages to keep pace with inflation….”

In 31 states, in 2022 the relative teacher wage penalty was greater than 20 percent. The five states with the greatest relative teacher wage penalty in 2022 were Colorado at 37.4 percent, Arizona at 33.2 percent, Virginia at 32.1 percent, Oklahoma at 31.8 percent, and Alabama at 30.9 percent. You can check your state’s relative teacher wage penalty on page 8 of Allegretto’s report.

Allegretto concludes: “One of our nation’s highest ideals is the promise to educate every child without regard to means. In many respects, we have always fallen short on that promise. And there are many issues to be addressed around public education and its funding… But one thing is for sure. A world-class public educational system cannot be accomplished without the best and the brightest heading our classrooms. And it cannot be done on the cheap.”

Categories Education Reform, Teacher Pay, Teacher Shortage, Teachers and Teaching

Massacre in Maine

By dianeravitch
October 27, 2023 //
55

What more can be said about the senseless murder of at least 18 people in Lewiston, Maine? We have said it all, heard it all.

Thoughts and prayers for those who lost loved ones.

Action on gun control? No way.

One Democratic Congressman from Maine, Jared Golden, switched his position and will now vote for restrictions on guns. Susan Collins, Republican Senator from Maine, will continue to oppose a ban on assault weapons. She favors a ban on “high-capacity magazines,” though it’s doubtful her colleagues would support that. She’s usually called a “moderate.” She’s probably serving her last term. Why is she resisting limits on deadly weapons?

The Republican Party will not budge. They didn’t budge after the murders of babies at Sandy Hook. They didn’t budge after the festival carnage in Las Vegas. They didn’t budge after the slaughter of children in Uvalde, Texas. They won’t budge now.

The United States banned assault weapons from 1994 to 2004. The ban lapsed and was never renewed. The skies didn’t fall. The Constitution remained in place.

According to the AP:

The shooting was the country’s 36th mass killing this year, according to a database maintained by The Associated Press and USA Today in partnership with Northeastern University. At least 190 people have died in those killings, which are defined as incidents in which four or more people have died within a 24-hour period, not including the killer — the same definition used by the FBI.

But other news sources say there have been 565 mass shootings this year:

There have been more than 565 mass shootings in 2023 so far, which is defined by the Gun Violence Archive as an incident in which four or more victims are shot or killed. These mass shootings have led to 597 deaths and 2,380 injuries.

I’m not sure that it matters how many people died in mass shootings because the people with the power to ban civilian ownership of military weapons don’t care. They won’t act no matter how many people die.

If I were a foreigner, I might hesitate to be a tourist in the U.S. It’s dangerous here.

Categories Corruption, Courage, Cruelty, Evil, Extremism, Failure, Guns, Republicans

Thom Hartmann: The Real Mike Johnson Is a Dangerous Rightwing Zealot

By dianeravitch
October 27, 2023 //
21

Thom Hartmann has checked out the record and public statements of the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana. He is even more of an extremist than his idol Donald Trump.

Hartmann writes:

The election of Louisiana’s Mike Johnson as House Speaker proves the premise that all the GOP has left are Donald Trump and hate.

As Congressman Jamie Raskin told reporters yesterday:

“Donald Trump has cemented his control over the Republican conference in the House of Representatives. He has a stranglehold on the Republican Party. Even as he faces 91 criminal charges and several of his election lawyers have pleaded guilty now to election-related offenses, one of his enablers on January 6 has just become the speaker of the House Representatives.”

Johnson’s hate of Democrats is so deep that he led a Trump-backed effort in the House to get Republicans to back a lawsuit by 18 Republican state attorneys general to overturn Biden’s election as president.

Their lawsuit had no merit and no facts — everybody, including the Republicans involved, knew that Biden had won fair-and-square — but Republican hate of Democrats is now so deep that the idea of Democrats legitimately governing after winning an election is repugnant to them. No matter how big the Democrats’ victory (7 million votes in this case) may be.

Johnson went public with his support of Trump’s hateful, poisonous Big Lie just a week after the 2020 election, saying:

 “You know the allegations about these voting machines, some of them being rigged with this software by Dominion, there’s a lot of merit to that…They know that in Georgia it really was rigged.”

As The Washington Post noted at the time:

“Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), head of the conservative Republican Study Committee, spearheaded the effort to round up support on Capitol Hill. Johnson emailed all House Republicans on Wednesday to solicit signatures for the long-shot Texas case after Trump called. The congressman told his colleagues that the president ‘will be anxiously awaiting the final list to review.’”

Johnson got 106 of the 196 Republicans then in the House to sign on to the effort to force four swing states to throw out Democratic votes and declare Trump emperor for life: he was the legal architect of the argument. It doesn’t get more hateful against our republican form of government than that effort to destroy confidence in the vote at the cornerstone of our democracy.

Johnson’s hate of women having agency over their own bodies and lives is so intense that he has repeatedly championed a nationwide ban on abortion. 

His wife Kelly, a “licensed pastoral counselor” with whom he’s in a “covenant marriage,” makes money from Louisiana Right To Life, and before being elected to the House in 2016 he was an attorney for the far-right-billionaire-supported Alliance Defending Freedom that pushed the Dobbs case before the Supreme Court.

While there, he helped sue New York and New Jersey to force them to allow official state license plates that displayed an anti-woman, anti-abortion message; sued New Orleans to try to block benefits for the partners of queer city employees; and promoted a “National Day of Truth” to encourage homophobic students to hate on their LGBTQ+ peers.

Johnson and the GOP explicitly hate queer people and their allies.

“Radical homosexual advocacy groups” are promoting “the culture’s assault on traditional values,” Johnson wrote in an op-ed for a Louisiana newspaper. That “assault,” of course, was gay marriage, something that horrifies Johnson and his wife. 

He wrote:

“Same-sex ‘marriage’ selfishly and deliberately deprives children of either a mother or a father. Children need both. Homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and, the studies clearly show, are ultimately harmful and costly for everyone.

“Society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle. If we change marriage for this tiny, modern minority, we will have to do it for every deviant group. Polygamists, polyamorists, pedophiles, and others will be next in line to claim equal protection. They already are. There will be no legal basis to deny a bisexual the right to marry a partner of each sex, or a person to marry his pet.”

Johnson also supports a federal version of DeSantis’ “Don’t Say Gay” law that would outlaw any discussion of queer people in any public school classroom in America. In another anti-gay newspaper screed, Johnson wrote:

“Your race, creed and sex are what you are, while homosexuality and cross-dressing are things you do. This is a free country, but we don’t give special protections for every person’s bizarre choices. Where would it end? This is one Pandora’s box we shouldn’t open.”

While Johnson hates queer people, he apparently loves Vladimir Putin, an affection that has earned him the loyalty and help of Donald Trump.

Last month he joined Matt Gaetz and 93 other Republicans in voting to cut off all US military aid to assist Ukraine’s survival in the face of Russia’s ongoing terror campaign.

He’s also a friend to mass shooters and the psychopaths at the NRA. 

Johnson repeatedly voted against gun safety and gun control legislation, and voted against re-authorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

Hating on Medicare and Social Security is another specialty of Johnson and the GOP. As Social Security Works Executive Director Alex Lawson noted yesterday:

“Rep. Mike Johnson has a long history of hostility towards Social Security and Medicare. As Chair of the Republican Study Committee from 2019-2021, Johnson released budgets that included $2 trillion in cuts to Medicare and $750 billion in cuts to Social Security, including:
— Raising the retirement age
— Decimating middle class benefits
— Making annual cost-of-living increases smaller
— Moving towards privatization of Social Security and Medicare.”

Johnson also pushed for $3 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), saying slashing the entitlement programs should be Congress’ “top priority.” Johnson is also a huge advocate for a Catfood Commission to figure out ways to slash Social Security benefits to seniors (thus forcing them to eat catfood: the White House refers to it as a “death panel for Social Security”).

Like Red state Republican politicians beholden to the tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical industries, Johnson also hates marijuana. He’s repeatedly argued and voted against legalization, as well as helping shoot down a bill that would let legal pot dispensaries use banks to conduct their business.  

Hating on science and our children’s future is a feature, not a bug, of Republican politics, and Mike Johnson fits right in. The largest single group of donors to his political career have been the oil and gas industries, and he happily takes their money and spreads their lies. For example, he argued:

“The climate is changing, but the question is, is it being caused by natural cycles over the span of the Earth’s history? Or is it changing because we drive SUVs? I don’t believe in the latter. I don’t think that’s the primary driver.”

The League of Conservation Voters gave his environmental record a 0 percent (yes, zero) score for 2022: this guy has burrowed so deeply in Big Oil’s pocket that he’s like a blood-filled tick on a shaggy dog. He’ll never let go.

On voting rights, Johnson hates voters in Blue cities in Red states as much as their own Republican legislatures do. A big fan of voter suppression laws, he argued that making it harder to vote and purging people from voter rolls would help the GOP in the 2022 election:

“They’re making sure that the election results can be counted upon, and that’s a critical thing for us to do.”

That was followed by his voting against the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the For The People Act, both of which would have guaranteed Americans’ right to vote regardless of race, religion, or geography. On the other hand, he voted for a Republican bill that would have enshrined GOP voter suppression efforts nationwide. 

Like Rand Paul and Tommy Tuberville, Johnson apparently also hates our men and women serving in the armed forces.

He voted against the Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Actthat President Biden was cheerleading because it would aid service members like Biden’s son Beau who became deathly sick because of exposure to open-air burn pits and other toxins.

He also voted against a year-end package of bills to aid service members, including requiring states to honor the professional licenses of military spouses who find themselves stationed in states other than where they were originally certified. And he joined Tuberville in his opposition to the Pentagon paying to fly raped servicewomen stationed in countries or states where abortion is illegal to places where it is available.

Johnson has supported a few Republican military spending bills, but only, as military.comnoted, when they are “packed with GOP policy riders such as provisions to bar abortion services, transgender health care, and LGBTQ+ Pride flags at the VA.”

Johnson, like most Republicans who hate the idea of Brown people entering our country legally, is also a “border hawk,” having visited our southern border with Donald Trump and introduced two pieces of legislation that would restrict immigration and refugee status. Speaking of his desire to “build a wall” and keep would-be refugees out of the US, he said:

“Now, I have no illusions about this. I’m sure that President Biden will veto anything we send him, but it will send a very strong message. If we can’t override a veto, we’ll be ready to run when the next Republican president is elected two years later.”

Republicans like Johnson love to plaster the word “freedom” all over everything they do. But they’re just fine with a for-profit prison industry lobbying for harsher sentences, and to keeping draconian drug laws in place.

When Republicans say “freedom,” it’s a safe bet they mean they want the freedom to hate on minorities, the freedom of rich people and giant corporations to screw average working people, and the freedom of billionaires to continue paying only around 3 percent of their income in income taxes.

In MAGA Mike Johnson (what Trump calls him), Republicans have found the perfect embodiment of their deplorable basket of hatreds. At this point, the only “loves” they have are rightwing billionaires and the fossil fuel industry. And, of course, Trump’s good buddy and fossil fuel oligarch Vladimir Putin.

Thank you for reading The Hartmann Report. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Categories Accountability, Bigotry, Billionaires, Cruelty, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Environment, Ethics, Extremism, Gender, Politics, Privatization, Religion, Republicans, Trump

Nancy Flanagan: How School Choice Erodes Support for the Public Good

By dianeravitch
October 27, 2023 //
9

Nancy Flanagan, retired teacher of music in Michigan, writes here about how “school choice” has damaged the perception of public schools, turning them from a valued public good to just another consumer choice. when she started teaching, public schools were the glue of the community. Now they are forced to compete with multiple private choices, which claim to be better although they are not.

She explains why we could have good public schools in every community, but we have lost the will to pursue that goal. instead we have pursued a series of demonstrably failed ideas, wasting money and lives, while disintegrating the will to improve our public schools.

She writes:

The only contentious thing I ever talk about, at holiday hang-outs or on Facebook (our new town square), is education policy. I will talk to just about anybody—persistently and passionately—about schools, and what it would take to make our public education system not merely workable, but beneficial for all kids in the United States.

This is, by the way, a goal that could largely be accomplished. We have the human capital, the resources and the technical knowledge to transform public education over a generation. What we lack is the public will to do so—for children other than our own, at least.

This represents a sea change in our 20th century national approach to public education, that post-war America where the GI Bill and the Baby Boom made tan, rectangular brick elementary schools spring up like mushrooms in the 1950s. Teachers were in high demand, and state universities were adding a new dormitory every year. Education was going to lift us up, make us (here it comes) the greatest nation on earth.

We don’t think that way anymore.

Somewhere in between our rush to put a man on the moon and the advent of computers in all our classrooms, we lost our “public good” mojo, the generous and very American impulse to stir the melting pot and offer all children, our future citizens, a level playing field, educationally. Lots of edu-thinkers trace this to 1983 and the Nation at Risk report, but I think that the origins of losing that spirit of unity are deeper and broader than that.

Recently, I posted an article from American Prospect on my Facebook page—The Proselytizers and the Privatizers: How religious sectarian school voucher extremists made useful idiots of the charter movement (Katherine Stewart). You can read divergent articles on charter schools (the most obvious and deceptive signal of the loss of our sense of “public good” in education) everywhere, but this was a particularly good piece, honest without being accusatory, damning but cautious:

A wing of the charter movement that is ideologically or religiously opposed to “government schools” was present at the charter movement’s creation, and has grown to comprise a sizable segment of the charter universe. With the election of Donald Trump and the appointment of Betsy DeVos as education secretary, it is presently empowered as never before. Public confusion about vouchers and charters continues to create opportunities. A lightly regulated charter school industry could achieve many of the same goals as voucher programs. They could drain funding from traditional public schools, deregulate the education sector, and promote ideological or religious curricula—all without provoking the kind of resistance that vouchers received.

I posted the article because it was true and thoughtful.

I live in Michigan, where charters took root over two decades ago. Like a handful of other states, we now know what happens to public education, including healthy districts, when charter schools damage the perceived desirability of one—thriving, publicly supported—school for all children. It’s happened all over our state, first in the urban and rural districts, struggling to maintain programming and viability, and now in Alpha districts, as their budgets are diminished and their student populations lured to schools that are “safer” (read: whiter).

After I posted the article, the online conversation was revealing. Teachers (and a lot of my Facebook friends are educators) contributed positive commentary. But there was also a fair amount what Stewart calls public confusion.

  • A sense that charter schools are, somehow, de facto, better than public schools—simply by the virtue of the fact that they’re not public, but selective and special.
  • Assertions that public schools (schools I know well, and have worked in) are attended by children who haven’t learned how to behave properly.
  • Blaming teacher unions for doing what unions do: advocating for fairness, serving as backstop for policy that prioritizes the community over individual needs or wants.

None of these things is demonstrably true. The conversation illustrated that many parents and citizens are no longer invested in public education, emotionally or intellectually. School “choice” is seen as parental right, not something that must be personally paid for. There is now agreement with an idea once unthinkable in America: corporations also have a “right” to advertise and sell a for-profit education, using our tax dollars.

Education is a major major public good where we tax the rich in order to provide a public benefit that you get just by right of being a citizen. When they talk about needing to do away with the entitlement mentality, the most problematic entitlement for them is not Medicare or Social Security. It’s education. Education is even more of a problem for them because teachers are trying to encourage kids to think they can do more. And that’s dangerous.

The core of the public confusion around schooling has been carefully cultivated for decades.

It’s worth talking about—the uniquely American principle of a free, high-quality education for every single child—even if the dialogue is heated. We’re in danger of losing the very thing that made us great. 

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Competition, Corporate Reform, Democracy, Education Industry, Education Reform, Michigan

Houston: Principal of a High-Performing School Removed; Parents and Students Baffled

By dianeravitch
October 27, 2023 //
2

The chaos continues in the Houston school district, under the addled leadership of Mike Miles, the state-appointed superintendent. Another principal was pushed out, along with several staff members. No reason was given. Several hundred teens and parents demonstrated outside the school to protest the sudden dismissals of tested school leaders.

Sam Gonzalez Kelly wrote in The Houston Chronicle:

Families and staff at Eastwood Academy High School were informed Tuesday that their principal and several other staff members were pulled from the East End school after an investigation by the district into “incidents at the campus.”

Principal Ana Aguilar’s removal was announced in an automated phone call from HISD Central Division Superintendent Luz Martinez, who said that the change was being made to “ensure a high-quality education environment.” A district spokesman added in a statement that “HISD takes student safety in our schools very seriously,” and that Aguilar and other staffers were removed “after an investigation into incidents at the campus.”

Ana Aguilar

An assistant principal, a counselor and a librarian were also relieved of their duties, according to one teacher at Eastwood, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. An HISD spokesman declined to elaborate on the “incidents” in question or provide further comment.

The news immediately sent waves of outrage and confusion rippling through the tight-knit Eastwood community, whose members were unaware of any incidents that would spark their principal’s removal. Aguilar did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“It’s very frustrating, Eastwood is a wonderful school,” said Miranda Gonzales, a parent of an Eastwood student. “There’s no reason for the principal to be removed, Eastwood isn’t (in Miles’ New Education System). It’s ridiculous, it’s insanity and none of us know what’s going on.”

Eastwood, a school of fewer than 400 students in Houston’s East End, received an A rating from the Texas Education Agency on its latest evaluations. Aguilar joined the campus in 2022 after spending three years as principal at Robinson Elementary School, where she won a First Year Principal of the Year Award at what was an Achieve 180 campus in the east region of the district.

Aguilar’s removal is the latest in a string of shakeups at HISD schools, where at least nine other principals have been replaced without much in the way of explanation given to families or staff. The principal at Middle College High School at Houston Community College’s Felix Fraga campus, also in HISD’s Central Division, was removed less than a week ago. The principal at Cage Elementary and Project Chrysalis Middle School, many of whose students go on to attend Eastwood Academy, was replaced during the first week of school this year.

Yesterday the new Miles leadership removed the principal of Wisdom High School and most of its top administrators. Wisdom’s students are mostly non-English-speakers.

Categories Accountability, Administrators, superintendents, Disruption, Ethics, Houston, State Takeover, Texas
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »