Archives for category: Billionaires

The next time you hear boastful claims about “reform,” think Chicago.

 

Poor Chicago! Arne Duncan launched his version of reform there in 2001, with Gates funding. School closings, test scores above all, new schools, charter schools. And what is left now: a public school system struggling to survive. The results of Arne’s reforms: zilch.

 

Then Obama named his basketball buddy as Secretary of Education and the reforms that failed in Chicago were imposed on the nation by the ill-fated Race to the Too, where everyone is a loser.

 

So, Mike Klonsky tells us, reform is business as usual. The Chicago way. Those that have, get more. Those that have not, get ignored.

 

Fifteen years of reform. Think Chicago. Where Democratic leaders pander to billionaires and strangle the public schools.

Over the past couple of weeks, there have been many articles about PARCC deleting blogs and tweets. In every case, PARCC complains that the offending blogger and Tweeter has infringed on its copyright.

 

But Mercedes asks an overlooked question: Does PARCC Inc. actually own the copyright to the PARCC tests?

 

Mercedes seeks the answer directly from Laura Glover, the executive of PARCC Inc.

 

If they own the PARCC, let the world see the evidence.

Mercedes Schneider received a copy of the Media Matters report on the corporate rightwing assault on public education, as did I and many others. She had the same reaction that I did. How can you list the rightwing think tanks, corporate groups, and foundations that are promoting privatization and forget to mention the three biggest funders of rightwing attacks on public education: Gates, Walton, and Broad?

 

There were some other glaring omissions. Stand for Children and Parent Revolution were there, but not Democrats for Education Reform, which funds candidates who support the rightwing agenda.

 

It seemed fishy. Mercedes did some digging and learned that Media Matters is led by journalist David Brock. Brock is active in the Clinton campaign. It must have been a political decision to omit the three biggest funders of privatization and anti-union policies. More than 90% of the nation’s 7,000 or so charter schools are non-union. The expansion of charters is an effective way to break the nation’s largest public unions. The funders know that.

 

After more digging, Mercedes concluded that the omissions were not accidental. I decided to trash the post I had written. But I was glad to see some acknowledgement–even if partial–for the struggle we are engaged in to save public education.

 

 

We have observed frequently that reformers almost always have a soft landing in a cushy job, even when their previous endeavor was a dud.

 

Thus Chris Barbic led the Achievement School District in Tennessee, promising to raise the schools in the bottom 5% to the top 25% in five years; it didn’t happen (five of the six schools in the first cohort are still in the bottom 5%, and the sixth is in the bottom 10%). No matter. Barbic now works for the John Arnold Foundation in what must be a less stressful job.

 

John King was a disaster as state commissioner in New York. Now he is Secretary of Education.

 

The eight years of Obama’s education policies were a nightmare for the teaching profession and public schools, with everyone struggling for survival.

 

Arne Duncan now works for Laurene Powell Jobs, Steve Jobs’ widow. And one of his top deputies, James Shelton, was just hired as advisor to Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan. Shelton previously worked for the Gates Foundation. Life is good if you are a reformer.

 

 

New York magazine reports that activists are succeeding in persuading public pension funds to drop out of hedge fund investments.

The pension fund trustees have included that these investments are a bad risk. Their decision making was influenced by an activist group called the Hedge Clippers, which was created by the AFT to embarrass the hedge fund managers.

Part of the anger towards the hedge funds results from their heavy investment in Puerto Rico bonds and their public relations campaign to stop Congress from allowing Puerto Rico to get bankruptcy protection. Certain hedge funds bought Puerto Rico’s bonds at a deep discount and now hope to make billions by getting paid in full. They have been running slick commercials on television featuring a Puerto Rican woman who says she will lose her life savings if Congress allows Puerto Rico to find a solution other than paying the bondholders in full.

Paying the bondholders in full will mean bankrupting the Puerto Rican economy, closing its schools and social services, but paying the hedge funds the face value of the bonds they bought at a deep discount.

 

 

Just five days before New Yorkers went to the polls in bitterly contested presidential primaries defined by the widespread sense among voters that Wall Street is indeed “rigged,” the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, or NYCERS, where Garrido is a trustee, voted to pull its money out of all hedge funds. That amounts to about $1.5 billion, or 3 percent, of a $50 billion pension fund.

 

The perception that hedge funds are a raw deal for everyone but their fee-fattened managers has not only become mainstream with astonishing speed, it has begun to pose a threat to an industry that pretty recently seemed to be on top of the world. The move by the pension for the largest municipal employees union in the U.S., representing 100,000 New Yorkers, to get out of hedge funds is the latest sign that the near $3 trillion hedge-fund industry has peaked, with global assets now slightly lower than they were in 2014, as investor redemptions hit $15 billion after last year’s poor performance. NYCERS was following the lead of another bellwether entity, the $300 billion California Public Employees Retirement System, which exited hedge funds more than a year ago.

 

But NYCERS pulling its money out of hedge funds is perhaps best read as the biggest victory yet for a burgeoning anti-hedge-fund movement that is fueled by widespread anger at economic inequality and argues for divestment on a wide variety of grounds — most notably right now that prominent hedge funds are squeezing Puerto Rico for debt payments, even as the island spirals deeper into economic depression. At the forefront of that protest effort is a group called Hedge Clippers. About a year ago, the American Federation of Teachers created the organization in response to anti-union efforts and other conservative political actions by various hedge-fund titans. For months the group has been lobbying public pension funds — including NYCERS — to get out of the investment vehicles. Last November, Hedge Clippers published an AFT report showing that 11 big public pension funds that have invested in hedge funds would have done better elsewhere. New York City public advocate Tish James, a NYCERS trustee, gives some credit to Hedge Clippers for the decision to divest. The group’s arguments reached “the minds of a number of individuals who want to be conscious about our public investments,” she says, and likens its efforts to the 1980s campaign to pull money out of apartheid South Africa.

 

Following on the heels of New York’s move, Hedge Clippers met with Ohio public-pension-fund execs to make its case, and it plans to take its battle to college campuses next, where it hopes to win over liberal-leaning universities, which have invested a huge chunk of their endowments in hedge funds, including those run by the moguls who are their alumni. “We feel confident that more pension funds are going to divest,” says Stephen Lerner, a former organizer with the Service Employees International Union and one of the key architects of Hedge Clippers.

 
This all comes at a time when many hedge funds have experienced their worst year since the crash of 2008, following a string of disappointing ones. Last spring, New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer (also a NYCERS trustee) released the devastating report that made Garrido so angry: He found that private equity, real-estate, and hedge-fund assets had cost the city’s pension system $2.6 billion in lost value over the prior ten years, in large part due to the hefty fees they charged. Then, in 2015, NYCERS’s hedge-fund portfolio lost 1.88 percent, lagging behind both the S&P 500 and key bond indexes.

 

The explosive growth of hedge funds — they had one-sixth as much money under management at the turn of the century as they do today — was fueled in no small part by public pensions like NYCERS handing them huge sums of money. Those billions helped transform what previously had been a boutique investment for the Über-rich into an institutional asset class where management fees of 2 percent of the money under management and 20 percent of the investment returns created a slew of hedge-fund billionaires. Even in years their funds lost money or barely broke even, some managers earned hundreds of millions off management fees alone. Castles sprouted up on the Connecticut shore. World-class art collections were assembled. Historic fortunes were made.

 

Financed largely by the AFT and a few philanthropic foundations, Hedge Clippers has quickly morphed into a coalition of more than a dozen labor, civil-rights, environmental, and progressive community groups expanding to ten states and Puerto Rico with a stated mission of “unmasking the dark money schemes and strategies that the billionaire elite uses to expand their wealth, consolidate power and obscure accountability for their misdeeds.” The group’s top dozen organizers work out of the offices of their respective organizations, primarily in Washington, D.C. and New York, mobilizing through a Google listserv. The group protests a variety of issues, some more comprehensible than others: They interrupted investment conferences in New York City, alternately demanding Starboard Value’s Jeff Smith institute a $15-per-hour minimum wage for his fast-food workers at the Olive Garden and blaming Larry Robbins of Glenview Capital for causing cancer by investing in Monsanto. Still, the group knows it’s riding the zeitgeist.

 

To some extent, the anti-hedge fund movement has its roots in Occupy Wall Street. Lerner, who has been a leading labor political strategist for decades and is now a fellow at Georgetown University, was also involved in that movement. He says the new, laserlike focus on hedge funds grew from seeing billionaires like GOP donors Paul Singer and Dan Loeb battle unions on public education and taxes. When Hedge Clippers shone a light on investments by billionaires Julian Robertson and Steve Cohen in drug company Gilead, which has priced a hepatitis-C-virus drug out of reach for many, that brought AIDS activists and civil-rights groups into the anti-hedge-fund cause.

 

In New York state, the anti-hedge-fund activists have also hooked up with a group called “Patriotic Millionaires” — which includes some hedge-fund and private-equity managers — in an effort to kill a tax break that allows these managers to pay a lower tax rate on income they earn from managing other people’s money. A bill to abolish the so-called “carried interest” loophole is currently working its way through the New York Senate.

 

To be sure, hedge funds aren’t going away. The biggest fund, $104 billion Westport, Connecticut–based Bridgewater Associates, which runs an opaque black-box strategy, grew 16 percent last year despite lackluster returns, according to a recent survey by data provider Hedge Fund Intelligence. Funds that are $5 billion or greater in size continue to dominate the industry, and those tend to have fee structures that allow them to survive sizeable redemptions. Moreover, the decade-long boom has made it possible for many hedge-fund billionaires to keep the doors open with just their own wealth if it comes down to that.

 

But the industry can’t ignore the winds of change. “The pressure on institutional investors to reduce, or abandon, their exposure to hedge funds is growing,” placing the industry at a “tipping point,” says HFI managing editor Nick Evans. Hedge funds will have to deliver results for investors that are not achievable elsewhere to justify their high fees, he says. Between 1990 and 2000, hedge funds had average annualized returns of almost 20 percent, but those days are long gone. “Out of maybe 10,000 hedge funds, only 1 percent are worth their fees on a net basis,” says Michael Hennessy, managing director of Morgan Creek Capital Management, which invests in hedge funds. “There are a lot who are not worthy and should go away.”

 
To survive, hedge funds will also have to confront the new political reality that has taken hold, as their politics and their investments become more closely scrutinized, thanks in no small part to Hedge Clippers. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of NYCERS, whose divestment was partly motivated by its hedge funds’ role in the Puerto Rican debt disaster that is still unfolding. Last year, the pension fund learned that at least three of the hedge funds in its portfolio (D.E. Shaw, Brigade Capital Management, and Fir Tree Partners) were among the many that own about 30 percent of Puerto Rico’s outstanding debt. Hedge funds bought into a $3.5 billion junk bond offering in 2014 and swooped in to buy more as prices sank last year.

 

When Puerto Rico said it might default on its $72 billion debt last summer, Hedge Clippers hammered on the hedge fund connection and staged a protest in front of the office of one of the biggest hedge-fund owners of the debt, BlueMountain Capital. The crisis hit home for the NYCERS retirees as hedge funds pushed Puerto Rico to cut public services and lay off government workers to avoid default. Thousands of those workers are members of AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) — the same union that represents NYCERS retirees.

 

Puerto Rico, now facing a 45 percent unemployment rate, has since devolved into a humanitarian crisis, with power outages and shuttered hospitals as the Island Commonwealth has been unable to push bankruptcy legislation or debt relief through the U.S. Congress. Instead, the bondholders have launched a massive lobbying and advertising campaign accusing Puerto Rico of profligacy and demanding it pay up. The developments nudged NYCERS toward pulling its money. “A significant number of NYCERS retirees are Puerto Rican, and if they were to know we were investing in hedge funds that had a [negative] financial impact on Puerto Rico, they would support the divesting from those hedge funds,” says Tish James.
Last November NYCERS appealed to the hedge funds to help solve the Puerto Rican crisis. When that failed, trustee Garrido — who had previously complained that hedge funds’ high fees combined with lousy returns were a “rigged system” — went on the attack at a December 3 press conference on Capitol Hill. As Latino political activists pressed Congress for help, he criticized hedge funds for profiting from the economic crisis while demanding austerity policies that hurt the island’s working class. Four months later, NYCERS voted to dump its hedge-fund investments.

 

 

Who knew that the 1% were so sensitive to criticism?

 

This evening the Wall Street Journal published an article called “The Union War on Charter School Philanthropists.” In the eyes of the WSJ, charter schools are a blessing, and we should all be grateful to the wealthy philanthropists who help them multiply. And of course, the WSJ can’t imagine that anyone would oppose a private takeover of public schools except teachers’ unions.

 

The WSJ can’t admit that charters get high test scores by excluding students with disabilities, English language learners, and low-scoring students. Their secret sauce: attrition, exclusion, test-prep, robotic discipline. What the WSJ loves about charters is that more than 90% are non-union.

 

Here is is what the article says:

 

 

OPINION COMMENTARY

 
The Union War on Charter-School Philanthropists

 
The wealthy are giving millions to fix education, but their gifts draw fire from a predictable source.

 

 

By NINA REES

 
May 1, 2016 5:43 p.m.

 
If you heard that a group of philanthropists came together to donate millions of dollars to schools, you would probably consider it good news. Indeed, thousands of underprivileged kids will be helped by the $35 million raised for Success Academy charter schools at a charity gala earlier this month. But teachers unions detect a nefarious purpose.

 

This $35 million donation was “part of a coordinated national effort to decimate public schooling,” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, wrote in an April 13 article at the Huffington Post. “Wealthy donors and their political allies,” she warned, are “pushing unaccountable charter growth in urban centers while stripping communities of a voice in their children’s education.”

 

Regardless of the political attacks, politicians and philanthropists must remain committed. Charter schools serve many underprivileged students: 56% are on free or reduced lunch and 65% are minorities, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Because they are run independently of school districts and city bureaucracies, they have the flexibility to be innovative in the choices they offer to parents, providing services like extended-learning schedules and language immersion.

 

Charter schools are also closing achievement gaps. At Success Academy schools in New York, three-quarters of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch and nearly all are minorities. In 2015, 68% of students scored proficient in reading and 93% ranked proficient in math. For contrast, only 35% of New York City students overall scored proficient in math. Their reading abilities were even worse.

 

This success translates to broad-based support. About two-thirds of public-school parents favor charter schools, according to a 2015 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll. Support is especially high among low-income parents, according to a March survey commissioned by the organization I lead. Some 88% of parents who earn less than $50,000 a year would like to see more charter schools in their communities.

 

Union leaders haven’t always been adamantly anti-charter. Ms. Weingarten’s former boss and mentor Al Shanker is actually credited with proposing charter schools. Sharing his vision in a 1988 speech, he said, “There is a role in all this for the federal government, state government, the local government, the business community, and foundations.”

 

Today, 25 years after Minnesota passed the first charter-school law, nearly three million students attend about 7,000 charter schools in 43 states and the District of Columbia. Yet over one million students remain on charter waiting lists, meaning that additional schools can’t come soon enough. And because charters nationwide receive, on average, 72 cents for every dollar that district-run schools do, philanthropy is vital to expansion.

 

Philanthropists have always contributed to their alma maters and other civic institutions, but opportunities to support public education have been limited. Donors want their contributions to have measurable results, and few successful businesspeople would voluntarily send money to poorly performing district bureaucracies. Mark Zuckerberglearned this lesson the hard way when much of his $100 million gift to public schools in Newark, N.J., was frittered away.

 

Charter schools have changed the equation for wealthy donors aiming to improve education. In Los Angeles billionaire Eli Broad is backing an effort to raise $490 million to create 260 new charter schools for more than 130,000 students.

 

Yet entrenched interests seem more concerned about explaining away the failures of public schools than supporting innovative ways to help students learn. In Louisiana, Gov.John Bel Edwards threatened to severely limit the ability of the state board of education to authorize charter schools rejected by local school boards. This appeal role of the state board is important because it ensures that quality charter schools can open even if local politics prevent approval. Gov. Edwards’s proposal was defeated in the state legislature, but the episode demonstrated how a single official could jeopardize years of progress. New Orleans’s all-charter district has been catching up with the rest of the state and hasraised graduation rates by 10 percentage points over the past decade.

 

In Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker is fighting to lift an arbitrary cap that limits the state to 72 charter schools. The Massachusetts Teachers Association is spending millions to keep the caps in place. This despite Boston charter-school students gaining 170 days of extra learning in reading and 233 days in math, compared with regular students, according to a report by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes.

 

Charter schools put high-quality education within reach of students without regard for family incomes. Policy makers and philanthropists should pay close attention to how these schools are revamping communities and attracting philanthropic investment to some of the neediest neighborhoods. Charters have the potential to revolutionize American education—but they will need support to do so.

 

Ms. Rees is president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

This is a fascinating post by Mercedes Schneider. You could call her a “follow the money” expert. She began wondering who was funding Education Post, the blog run by Peter Cunningham that celebrates corporate reform. Cunningham was assistant secretary for communications in the U.S. Department of Education, when Arne Duncan was Secretary of Education. We know from reports in the press that Education Post received $12 million from the Walton Family Foundation, the Eli Broad Foundation, and Michael Bloomberg. The press also noted “an anonymous donor.” Mercedes wondered about that anonymous donor, and she did some digging and found out who it is.

 

I won’t spoil the pleasure of reading this post. It reads like a detective story. Suffice it to say that almost everyone involved is deeply embedded in corporate reform, and most of the links in the web lead to the Obama administration and to the U.S. Department of Education. It seems clear that the latter was taken over by the corporate reform movement. The question is why. Why would a Democratic president front for the corporate takeover of public education?

Rick Perlstein is a brilliant writer who usually writes about national politics. Since he lives in Chicago, he couldn’t help but notice the hostile takeover of the public schools by a small, interconnected corporate elite. He applies his journalistic and scholarly skills to unraveling this sordid story.

He begins with a story about an educator who was recently “reassigned” (fired) by the Mayor’s school board.

Perlstein writes:

“This past September, an award-winning Chicago Public Schools principal named Troy LaRaviere published a post on his blog that began, “Whenever I try to take a break from writing about CPS to focus on other aspects of my professional and personal life, CPS officials do something so profoundly unethical, incompetent and/or corrupt that my conscience calls me to pick up the pen once more.”

“What had Principal LaRaviere going this time? We’ll get there eventually. But first we have to back up and survey what brought the Chicago Public Schools to this calamitous pass in the first place. It’s hard to know where to begin. Though when it comes to the failings of America’s institutions you can rarely go wrong by looking to the plutocrats.

“Travel back with me, then, to July of 2003, when the Education Committee of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago — comprised of the chairman of the board of McDonald’s, the CEOs of Exelon Energy and the Chicago Board Options Exchange, two top executives of the same Fortune 500 manufacturing firm, two partners at top international corporate law firms, one founder of an investment bank, one of a mutual fund, and the CEO of a $220.1 billion asset-management fund: twelve men, all but one of them white — published “Left Behind: Student Achievement in Chicago’s Public Schools.”

“Chicago’s schools were in pathetic shape, these captains of industry explained: only 36 percent of eleventh graders met or exceeded state reading standards, only 26 percent reached math standards, only 22 percent were up to snuff in science, and 40 percent had by then dropped out.

“They found hope, however, in a new kind of educational institution called a “charter school” — “publicly-funded but independent, innovative schools that operate with greater flexibility and give parents whose children attend failing schools an option they do not have.”

“At that point Chicago had fifteen charters. The seven that were high schools scored an average of 17 percent higher on Illinois’ relatively new benchmark, the Prairie State Achievement Exam, said the report. Their graduation rates were 12 percent higher, attendance rates 8 percent higher, and dropouts 9 percent lower.

“So if a little was good, more must be better — right?

“Chicago should have at least 100 charter schools,” the Education Committee concluded. “These would be new schools, operating outside the established school system and free of many of the bureaucratic or union-imposed constraints that now limit the flexibility of regular public schools.”

“The problem was a school system that “responds more to politics and pressures from the school unions than to community or parental demands for quality,” and a municipal government that worries more about “avoiding labor discord and maintaining the political support of teachers and their labor unions than with advancing the education of children.”

Charters, though — poof! — possessed the magic power to make all the bad stuff disappear, because they bottled the stuff that made America great: “Competition — which is the engine of American productivity generally.” But how might schools, like convenience stores, compete? Just measure student performance, and close the schools that “underperform.” The 103-page report thus deployed the word “data” forty-five times, “score,” “scored,” or “scoring” 60 times — and “test,” “tested,” and “testing,” or “exam” and “examination,” some 1.47573 times per page.

“And, since these were the behind-the-scenes barons who veritably ran the city, it wasn’t even a year before the Chicago Public Schools headquarters on 125 S. Clark St. announced the “Renaissance 2010” initiative to close eighty traditional public schools and open precisely one hundred charters by 2010.

“Lo, like pedagogical kudzu, the charters came forth: forty-six of them, with names like “Infinity Math, Science, and Technology High School,” “Rickover Naval Academy High School,” “Aspira Charter School,” and “DuSable Leadership Academy of Betty Shabazz International Charter School.” Although, funny thing, rather than resembling the plucky, innovative — “flexible” — startups the rhetoric promised, the schools that flourished looked like factories stamped out by central planning. The skills most rewarded by Chicago’s charter boom became corporate marketing, regulatory capture, and outright graft.

“Left Behind” singled out one “stand out school”: the Noble Street Charter High School. Following the Renaissance 2010 report, Noble Street metastasized into the “Noble Network.” They opened sixteen schools, many named after the businesspeople who funded them, like Pritzker College Prep, Rauner College Prep, Rowe-Clark College Prep. (John Rowe and Frank Clark are both executives of the energy company Exelon, formed in a merger brokered by Rahm Emanuel in his investment banker days; Rowe was a member of the committee that authored “Left Behind” and also a member of the Noble Network’s board of directors.)

“Indeed, Noble runs just the kind of schools you’d expect to be sponsored by industrialists: their students are underprivileged waifs in uniforms who are fined for minor disciplinary infractions. The network is “founded,” its promotional materials promise, “on many of the same entrepreneurial principles that have built successful businesses — strong leadership, meaningful use of data, and a high degree of accountability.”

This is a well-written story of arrogance, greed, corruption, and deceit.

It is reassuring to see the Chicago story breaking out of the education media and into broader political discourse. The article “follows the money,” which is necessary these days. The character who is missing in this drama is Arne Duncan, who launched “Renaissance 2010,” which was a dismal failure. Why was he selected as Secretary of Education? Why was he allowed to impose the Chicago model on the nation? The public schools needed help and they were plundered. They became a plaything for Chicago’s elite. No one seemed to think about the children.

Opponents of corporate reform has high hopes when Bill de Blasio was elected, but their hopes are rapidly dimming. The de Blasio administration tried to slow down (not stop) the growth of Success Academy, and ran into a billionaire buzz saw. The hedge funders spent millions on a scurrilous TV campaign, falsely claiming that de Blasio administration was snuffing out the dreams of poor children of color (who had not yet been selected to enroll in the charters that might not open). The reality was that Eva Moskowitz’s chain was pushing a program for children with profound disabilities out of their dedicated space to make way for a new charter. Andrew Cuomo received big donations from the charter industry, and Eva won everything she wanted in the legislature, including free rent and the right to expand as much as she wanted. Since then, de Blasio has capitulated abjectly to the charter crowd.

 

Here is Leonie Haimson’s report on the latest meeting of the city’s board of education, now called the Panel on Education Policy, which is controlled by the Mayor.

 

Please be sure to watch the video at the end, made by the students of Meyer Levin School of the Performing Arts. The students are protesting the co-location of a charter in their school. The charter will take away the third floor of their building, which is their performance rooms.

Retired educator Mike Deshotels expresses his frustration with the charter industry in Louissiana, which has stymied every effort to regulate them, allow local districts to decide if they want them, or to hold them accountable. The new Governor John Bel Edwards pushed for charter reform, but was repeatedly rebuffed by legislators who were funded by charter advocates.

This must be child’s play for the billionaires, none of whom live in the state.

Deshotels wrote:

This story in The Advocate describes some of the House Education Committee actions yesterday, killing several bills designed to curb abuses by charters. Charter school administrators descended on the Education Committee in force Wednesday while the administrators and teachers in the real public schools were teaching children.

The charter advocates are a highly effective special interest group because they are backed up by big business in Louisiana and nationwide who are determined to privatize education as much as possible. In my opinion these folks have no respect for public schools or professional educators. They just see public education as a way to make money off of children.

As part of their strategy, charter advocates funnel huge amounts of political contributions to legislators and BESE members to insure that no legislation will pass to limit their growth and profits. So when legislators vote against reasonable bills to prevent charter abuses, it is the political contributions they received or expect to receive that are controlling the voting. If you are a supporter of public education, you need to know who voted against you repeatedly this week. I will provide that later.

Here is the testimony I gave to the House Education Committee in favor of HB 98, that would delete a provision in the 2012 Jindal legislation that allows BESE to approve independent charter school authorizers. Those authorizers could approve many new charter schools over the objection of our elected school boards.

Testimony on HB 98

Good morning. My name is Michael Deshotels and I live in Zachary. I do education research and write a blog on education for educators and parents.

I am here in support of HB 98, because we need to correct an error that was made in 2012 when the legislature rushed to try everything that they thought would improve public education in Louisiana. This part of the legislation was a mistake because it can take away our right to run our public schools through our elected school boards.

Most citizens believe in local control of our government services. It is wiser to have our schools run by our local school boards than by unelected groups or even by BESE. In addition, my research shows that it is also more effective to have our schools managed by our local school boards.

At one time it was thought that if low performing schools were taken over by BESE and given to charter school operators, that their student performance would improve over their performance in school board operated schools. That has now been proven to be wrong!

All of my research shows that the schools operated by BESE approved charters generally do a poorer job. All but one of the takeover schools in the Baton Rouge area, have been total failures. They have done so poorly that parents pulled their children out and some schools had to be shut down for lack of support. My research shows that the takeover schools in New Orleans still do not do as good a job of educating low-income students as do our local school boards across the state.

This experiment with our children has failed! It would be mistake therefore to allow new groups that are independent of the taxpayers to approve more charters.

It is a well-known fact that big contributors from outside Louisiana are the ones pushing for these new charters. Those contributors are the Waltons, the Broads from California (not spelled with an x), the Gates foundation from Washington state and Mike Bloomberg from New York. These big donors are the primary financiers of our present BESE elections and they are the primary financiers for New Schools for Baton Rouge, one of the groups that wants to be a charter authorizer. But to add insult to injury, these donors are not contributing money to help our public schools. They are donating millions to get politicians elected to privatize our schools and to use our tax money to do it with.

It is a serious error to say that that MFP money for each child belongs to the parent and that they should be able to take it to any school they choose. Citizens who have no children in public schools pay most of the MFP allocation and we are happy to do it. We deserve the right to choose how our schools will be run through our elected school boards. Please vote for this bill.”

All of the bills to regulate charters failed, despite the governor’s support.