Archives for category: Betsy DeVos

Steven Singer’s post criticizing school choice as “a lie” was blocked by Facebook.

Facebook refuses to accept ads from the Network for Public Education critical of school choice or any other ads from NPE supporting public schools and its two sites on Facebook.

Campbell Brown was hired by Facebook earlier this year to be a liaison with news media and to help avoid “fake news.” Whatever it is she is doing, she plays an important role at Facebook.

Now we know that Facebook has admitted selling at least 3,000 ads to Russian troll farms that disseminated fake news about issues and Clinton, concentrating on key states like Wisconsin and Michigan. Brown was not working at Facebook at the time those 3,000 Russian ads were aimed at voters in strategic states. [The original version of this post suggested that she was there but I was wrong: she was hired by Facebook in early 2017, after the election, as noted above in the link.]

Why did Facebook sell ads to Russian troll farms in 2016 but refuses to sell any ads at all to the Network for Public Education?

Campbell Brown is a friend of Betsy DeVos. She wrote a post at her website “The 74” defending DeVos when she was nominated by Trump. She was on the board of DeVos’ pro-voucher, pro-choice, pro-charter, anti-public school American Federation for Children. DeVos gave money to Campbell Brown’s anti-tenure, anti-union website “The 74.” Brown’s husband Dan Senor is active in Republican politics.

Is there a pattern here?

Steven Singer was blocked by Facebook for a week because of the post you are about to read. This post “violated community standards.” Steven Singer was censored by an algorithm. Or, Steven Singer was censored by the Political Defense team that tries to prevent any criticism of charter schools and TFA. This team swarms Facebook and other social media and complains that a post or tweet is “offensive” and the machine blocks the offending post.

This is the post by Steven Singer that has been blocked. This is the lie about “school choice” that DeVos and ALEC and charter promoters don’t want you to read.

He writes:

Neoliberals and right-wingers are very good at naming things.

Doing so allows them to frame the narrative, and control the debate.

Nowhere is this more obvious than with “school choice” – a term that has nothing to do with choice and everything to do with privatization.

It literally means taking public educational institutions and turning them over to private companies for management and profit.

He adds:

There are two main types: charter and voucher schools.

Charter schools are run by private interests but paid for exclusively by tax dollars. Voucher schools are run by private businesses and paid for at least in part by tax dollars.

Certainly each state has different laws and different legal definitions of these terms so there is some variability of what these schools are in practice. However, the general description holds in most cases. Voucher schools are privately run at (at least partial) public expense. Charter schools are privately run but pretend to be public. In both cases, they’re private – no matter what their lobbyists or marketing campaigns say to the contrary.

They take money from public schools that serve all students and give it to privatized schools that choose their students and expel those they don’t want.

Charters and vouchers are the Walmartization of public education. They introduce corporate chains to run what used to be neighborhood public schools. The only difference is that everyone may shop at Walmart, but not everyone who applies will be accepted at a choice school. The school does the choosing, not the family.

Steven reinforces what I wrote in Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools. “School choice” is a hoax, a lie. It is promoted by rightwing ideologues and by Democratic politicians hungry for funding by the financial sector, which sees schools as an emerging industry. Don’t be fooled.

School choice is privatization. And privatization is very bad for those who are not chosen. And very bad for our democracy.

Starbucks is my favorite brand of coffee, but I won’t be buying it anymore.

I just learned that Starbucks supports the Washington Policy Center, a rightwing policy group in Washington State that supports right-to-work (for less) laws, opposes a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and supports charters and vouchers. Bear in mind that the Supreme Court of Washington State ruled that charter schools are not public schools and not entitled to public funding. The Washington Policy Center supports school privatization.

Its last event featured Nigel Farage, the British politician who led the movement for Britain to secede from the European Union, or Brexit.

WPC has invited Betsy DeVos as its keynote speaker at its annual dinner on October 13 in Bellevue. Her views on school privatization are the same as those of the Washington Policy Center.

Melissa Westbrook, community activist, contacted Starbucks for their response. The statement she received by Email confirmed that Starbucks sponsors the Washington Policy Center but had nothing to do with the choice of speaker. This is an irrelevant answer. Why is Starbucks supporting a rightwing policy center at all? Next year the speaker might be Scott Walker or Charles Koch.

Express your disappointment with this hashtag: #whyStarbucks. Or sign this petition.

Corporations that bill themselves as “progressive” should not support rightwing policy centers that promote school privatization.

Starbucks is free to support any cause it chooses, and I am free not to buy their coffee anymore.

Kari Lydersen explains the story behind the Illinois tax-credit program, in this article.

In exchange for sending more money to Chicago, the Illinois legislature (controlled by Democrats) included a $75 million provision for tax credits for private school scholarships.

This is a voucher by another name.

It is the way to enact vouchers in a state where the state constitution bars them.

The nation’s best known tax credit program is in Florida, where Jeb Bush tried and failed to convince voters or the state supreme court to roll back the state constitutional ban on vouchers.

Betsy DeVos wants a national tax credit program, to drain students and resources from public schools.

Learn about it.

It is another way to privatize public education without public consent.

Betsy DeVos keeps trying out different metaphors and analogies in her effort to persuade the public that school choice is way better than public schools.

She has referred to cell phones (you choose among many different providers but the government doesn’t underwrite your choice), Uber (you choose but the government doesn’t underwrite your choice), food trucks outside the U.S. Department of Education (because there are no nearby restaurants but the government also doesn’t pay for your lunch).

So she tried again: You choose your college, why not choose your school?

Peter Greene explains here why this analogy fails.

Here a few of his wise observations:

“In the higher education system, it is primarily the interests of students that are at stake. In K-12, all of society has a stake in the system. Public schools do not exist to serve only parents. The interests of the students, their future employers, their future neighbors and co-workers, their future fellow voters, the community as a whole– all of these interests are represented. That’s why all taxpayers chip in (unlike the higher ed system). That means that all stakeholders get a say, and all public schools should be subjected to a considerably higher level of oversight and accountability than a school ike Harvard.

“Why is choice wrong for K-12? Believe it or not, I don’t think it has to be wrong. But as currently proposed and practiced, it’s wrong because

* There must be accountability for where and how public tax dollars are spent (that includes both issues of quality and issues of violating separation of church and state)

* The system must be fully funded. You cannot run three schools for the money previously spent on one. Don’t make it a zero-sum game– fully fund it.

* Do not leave leftover students behind. Do not push students out because they don’t fit your model. If you want choice, make it parents’ choice, not the school’s choice.

* Students before profits. No for-profits choices. And stringent rules on not-for-profits, most of whom are currently just for-profits with good money-laundering systems.

* Total transparency and complete local control.

“None of these are features of the system that brought those students to Harvard. That’s why choice in higher education, while not always very successful, is less objectionable than choice for K-12.”

Jeff Bryant, writing for the Education Opportunity Network, analyzes the U.S. Department of Education’s recent award of $253 Million to the Failing Charter Industry. He is especially appalled by the funding of charters in New Mexico, whose state auditor has identified numerous frauds in the charter sector, and whose public schools are shamefully underfunded.

He writes:

“Previous targets for federal charter grants have resembled a “black hole” for taxpayer money with little tracking and accountability for how funds have been spent spent. In the past 26 years, the federal government has sent over $4 billion to charters, with the money often going to “ghost schools” that never opened or quickly failed.

“In 2015, charter skeptics denounced the stunning selection of Ohio for a $71 million federal chart grant, despite the state’s charter school program being one of the most reviled and ridiculed in the nation.

“This year’s list of state recipients raises eyebrows as well.

“One of the larger grants is going to Indiana, whose charter schools generally underperform the public schools in the state. Nearly half of the Hoosier state’s charters receive poor or failing grades, and the state recently closed one of its online charter schools after six straight years of failure.

“Another state recipient, Mississippi, won a federal grant that was curiously timed to coincide with the state’s decision, pending the governor’s approval, to take over the Jackson school district and likely hand control of the schools to a charter management group.”

(Coincidentally, Stephen Dyer just posted about Ohio’s scandal-plagued charter sector. He wrote that nearly one-third of the charters that received federal funding never opened or closed right after they got the money, I.e., they were “ghost schools.”)

Worst of all, writes Bryant, is the $22.5 Million that will be sent to New Mexico, which has high child poverty and perennially underfunded public schools, as well as a low-performing charter sector.

What possible reason is there to fund a parallel school system when the state refuses to fund its public schools?

“According to a state-based child advocacy group, per-pupil spending in the state is 7 percent lower in 2017 than it was in 2008. New Mexico is also “one of 19 states” that cut general aid for schools in 2017, with spending falling 1.7 percent. “Only seven states made deeper cuts than New Mexico.”

“New Mexico’s school funding situation has grown so dire, bond rating agency Moody’s Investors Service recently reduced the credit outlook for two-thirds of the school districts in the state, and parent and advocacy groups have sued the state for failing to meet constitutional obligations to provide education opportunities to all students.

“To fill a deficit gap in the state’s most recent budget, Republican Governor Susana Martinez tapped $46 million in local school district reserves while rejecting any proposed tax increases.

“Given the state’s grim education funding situation, it would seem foolhardy to ramp up a parallel system of charter schools that further stretches education dollars, but New Mexico has doubled-down on the charter money drain by tilting spending advantages to the sector.”

To make matters worse, charter schools are funded at a higher level than public schools, and the state’s three online charters operate for profit. Despite their funding advantage, the charters do not perform as well as public schools. There is seldom any penalty for failure.

The state auditor in New Mexico has called attention to frauds and scams that result from lack of oversight in the charter industry.

So the U.S. Department of Education under Betsy DeVos is now in the business of funding failure. Quality doesn’t matter. Ethics don’t matter. Undermining the educational opportunity of the majority of children doesn’t matter. For sure, money matters, but only when it is spent for privatization.

A few pundits predicted that DeVos would be unable to inflict harm on the nation’s public schools. They were wrong.

Betsy DeVos planned a study visit to Ontario. Canadian Educators were appalled. They don’t like her privatization ideology any more than American Educators.

She canceled. A last minute “scheduling conflict.” Why go where they don’t want you?

“There had been a reluctance among public-school officials in Ontario to welcome Ms. DeVos, a polarizing figure who many in education circles see as the centre of a movement to use public dollars to pay for tuition at private and religious schools. Ms. DeVos has been accused by the president of the American Federation of Teachers as the “most anti-public education secretary of education ever” and of wanting to “destabilize and privatize” public schools.

“It remained unclear which schools she would be visiting. Several school boards contacted by The Globe and Mail, including in Toronto, York, Peel and Dufferin, said she was not visiting their schools.

“Harvey Bischof, president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, said he was pleased to learn that Ms. DeVos was not coming to Ontario.

“After The Globe first reported on her visit earlier this week, Mr. Bischof said in a statement that it was “alarming” the provincial government would allow her to tour Ontario schools.

“I couldn’t be more pleased that it’s cancelled,” he said on Wednesday. “She simply attracts attention to ideas that are of no value in the Ontario education system.”

“Sam Hammond, president of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, added: “If you support an inclusive, equitable, not-for-profit, publicly funded public education system, this is good news.”

Here are two views of Mick Zais, the new Deputy Secretary of Education selected by Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump.

First, from Politico:

“TRUMP TAPS NEW NO. 2 FOR THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT: The president on Tuesday night announced he’s nominating Mick Zais to be deputy secretary at the Education Department. Zais checks off a lot of conservative boxes – as superintendent of schools in South Carolina, he refused to participate in the Obama administration’s signature Race to the Top program, which encouraged states to adopt more rigorous academic standards like the Common Core in exchange for federal grants. Zais saw the standards, which were never mandated by the Obama administration, as federal overreach. He pulled South Carolina out of the Smarter Balanced tests, which are aligned to the Common Core. And he has supported the expansion of school choice programs in the state. Prior to serving as South Carolina’s superintendent, Zais was president of Newberry College for 10 years.”

The Council of Chief State School Officers expressed their approval.

But the grassroots group EdFirstSC were not so complimentary about their state school superintendent. They don’t think much of him.

“How about:

“Since taking office, Zais sent $144 million of our tax dollars to 49 other states, causing thousands of SC teachers to be fired and directly causing class sizes to skyrocket as we made the biggest cuts to education in the US…24.1%. SC test scores on NAEP plummeted over this period of draconian cuts that Zais would now make permanent.

“Since budgets have recovered, Zais has not requested that this funding be restored, even when the state had a billion-dollar surplus. To continue running SC schools on the cheap, he tried desperately to gut regulations limiting class-sizes.

“Zais has poisoned relationships with teachers, attempting to give them letter-grades based on test scores of students they’ve never even met. At a recent State Board meeting, he suggested making teachers at-will employees, to be fired without notice and without showing any cause or due process.

“Zais also took 29 personal days during his first ten months in office. He used those days to go golfing, attend stamp conventions, attend football games, and clean his shed.

“Zais allowed Jay Ragley to lie to the media, claiming that records related to those personal days would cost $500,000 in man-hours to process and provide under a Freedom of Information Act request. It ended up taking a staffer about two hours.

“His department has also conspired to censor and suppress public comment at a series of public meetings on teacher evaluation. At one meeting, staff members were caught taking audience questions into the hallway and stuffing them into a briefcase.

“At another, two senior staff members stood onstage giggling as they sorted questions into those that would and would not be answered. In a two-hour meeting, less than ten minutes were allotted for questions, and none were asked that raised concerns about their plan. That plan was ultimately rejected by the State Board because of serious concerns about its fairness.

“Even those who agree with his goals and radical Libertarian ideology would have to concede that Zais has been singularly ineffective in accomplishing anything of note.

“He runs the same play over and over: develop a plan with no input from stakeholders, keep the public in the dark, fail disastrously when it all comes to light…and then withdraw the plan to duck a vote.”

Usually, a new Secretary of Education selects a Deputy with extraordinary talents or a successful record.

DeVos seems to have chosen someone with more experience than she is (any educator fits that bill) but who is totally ineffectual and leads a low-performing state.

One thing she can count on: he shares her radical libertarian ideology.

In a recent special election, teacher Jacob Rosecrantz won election to the Oklahoma House of Representatives. They need him.

I asked him to write a short entry for the Blog.

This is what he wrote:

“My name is Jacob Rosecrants. I’m a father of two kiddos who go to public schools, and I’m a teacher at Roosevelt Middle School, located in the inner city part of Southwest Oklahoma City.

“I recently was elected as the next State Representative of House District 46, which covers West Norman and Noble, Oklahoma, running on a very pro-public schools platform.

“I became involved in politics almost immediately after I began my first year of teaching in 2012. Corporate reform featuring high-stakes tests was the newest fad for our schools.

“It is a joyless way to teach for educators and a horrible way for students to learn. After attending rallies at my state Capitol, I got the sense that our public schools were being viewed as a cash cow for testing companies and their lobbyists. I made it my mission to fight against all corporate school reform. This brings us to the question: What can I do to help our schools?

“Our public school system has dealt with the largest budget cuts in the nation. Our teachers are now officially the lowest paid in the nation. Anti-public school legislators rule the roost at the State House, supported by groups such as Oklahoma Federation for Children (backed by the voucher-happy Betsy DeVos) and “school and parent choice” advocates who believe that our schools should be run like businesses.

“I’m currently going to enter the Capitol as a member of the minority party; in fact the Republicans enjoy a super-majority in our Senate, House, and the Governor’s mansion. This super-majority will not even let bills that were generated by the Democrats be heard on the floor, even if that bill would be supported by the majority of people.

“What I can do in this environment is limited.

“But I will most definitely be an independent voice for our schools and our children. I will fight against all forms of school vouchers. I will educate my constituents about the meaning of “school and parent choice”, and how those terms are really just putting lipstick on a big corporate reform pig.

“During this past election, my voters were subjected to slanderous mail pieces featuring me paid for by Oklahoma Federation for Children. This was a full-on onslaught against me and my pro-public schools platform. There is a proverbial war under way here, with corporate school reform and charters (and their ALEC bought and paid for legislators) on one side, and an ever-rising wave of public school advocates, including parents, teachers, and other stakeholders, who are so concerned about our schools and the funding issues that they saw fit to elect an actual classroom teacher this past Tuesday.

“The battle may have been won, but this war continues every day, and I cannot wait to get in the trenches at the State Capitol in these upcoming months; a warrior for our public schools and core services.

“Jacob Rosecrants
“Representative-Elect of Oklahoma House District 46”

Editor:

The Oklahoma Federation for Children is part of Betsy DeVos’ American Federation for Children, as he notes. That means Jacob beat DeVos!

Jersey Jazzman is a teacher, blogger, and doctoral student in New Jersey. He has been writing brilliant statistical analyses of the differences between charter schools and public schools for years. He is no ideologue. He is a pragmatist.

In this post, he concludes what I long ago concluded: the so-called “reform movement” is a rightwing endeavor. I believe its real goals are to stamp out unions, deprofessionalize teaching (think TFA), and turn a profit on school funding.

JJ (aka Mark Weber) notes that Eva Moskowitz gets sizable funding from Wall Street and such notorious right wingers as the Mercer Family, which is also funding Steve Bannon. He notes the racist comments of the chairman of her board, as well as the Republican ties of other board members.

It is no secret that the notoriously rightwing Walton Family Foundation claims credit for opening one of e rey four charter schools in the nation. The Waltons hate unions.

One could go on and identify ALEC model legislation for charters. The connections are too glaring to overlook or excuse.

Betsy DeVos, Trump, ALEC, the Waltons, the Mercers…it is hard to find a rightwing politician or organization that is not pushing charters and vouchers.

That’s why the subtitle of my last book was “The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s public schools.”

The “hoax” was that the “reform movement” was actually a rightwing privatization movement.

As JJ writes:

“I really don’t know how much more clear this could be:

“- The education “reform” movement provides a pretext for underfunding public schools, which aligns with right-wing values.

“- The education “reform” movement is inherently anti-union, which aligns with right-wing values.

“- The education “reform” movement thrives when communities of color lose agency over their schools, which aligns with right-wing values.

“- The education “reform” movement is financed by wealthy people who openly profess conservative values.

“Can we please, then, stop this nonsense about charter schools and vouchers being a policy embraced by the left? Yes, there are some Democrats and other folks who are otherwise liberals who support “choice.” But their embrace of “reform” — whether out of ignorance or hypocrisy or, yes, even genuine belief — is inconsistent with the liberalism they espouse in other policy areas.

“Education “reform” is a right-wing movement. There is nothing remotely liberal about privatizing schools, demonizing unions, and making excuses for underfunding education. If you support charter schools and vouchers and call yourself a liberal, that is, of course, your right. But it’s really no different than being a pro-assault weapon liberal, or a pro-life* liberal: you’re holding a position on at least one issue (and likelyothers) that is philosophically aligned with the right.”