Archives for category: Billionaires

Fred Klonsky has the charter scandal of the day in Chicago. The founder and CEO of the Noble (no excuses) Charter Chain is stepping down after being accused of inappropriate conduct towards former students.

Public radio reporters Sarah Karp and Adriana Cardona-Maguigad of WBEZ broke the news of the latest Chicago charter school scandal.

Michael Milkie, the CEO of Noble, the city’s largest charter school network, is being investigated following complaints of “inappropriate behavior toward young female alumnae.”

Milkie has resigned in disgrace but without further consequences.

Noble runs 17 charter high schools and one middle school that serve more than 12,000 students.

Read the ugly details.

Noble has been considered Chicago’s premier charter chain.

One of the charters in named for billionaire Governor Bruce Rauner (just defeated). Another is named for billionaire heiress Penny Pritzker, who was Obama’s Secretary of Commerce. Her brother J.B. Pritzker, another billionaire, just defeated Rauner.

It isn’t enough that billionaires are pouring big money into school board races.

Now Laurene Powell Jobs is urging her allies to run for the local school board and become advocates for her ideas about the importance of reinventing high schools along the lines that she and Arne Duncan have chosen.

She has even provided a handy kit about how to do it.

Good move on her part. She doesn’t have to spend millions to elect her candidates. She just asks for volunteers for the XQ army.

The latest speculation is that Amazon will
split its second headquarters between northern Virginia and Long Island City, in Queens, New York City. The following story assumes that Amazon will choose northern Virginia, but wherever the giant corporation locates its second headquarters, this is a fascinating article about Amazon and Jeff Bezos.

This is a fascinating article that appeared in The New Yorker about Amazon, the financial behemoth of our age. It is based on the guess that Jeff Bezos will choose to locate in northern Virginia, for reasons explained in the article. Cities have been offering Amazon all sorts of tax breaks and incentives to choose them. But the smart money is betting on the proximity to DC.

Amazon has made Bezos the richest man in the world, with an estimated wealth of $150 billion.

This will be his new home:

“On October 21, 2016, an entity called the Cherry Revocable Trust purchased two adjacent buildings in the Kalorama neighborhood of Washington, D.C., for twenty-three million dollars. The buildings, which previously had housed the Textile Museum, were to be converted into a private residence—at twenty-seven thousand square feet, the largest in the city. In January, it was revealed that the anonymous purchaser represented by the Cherry Revocable Trust was Jeff Bezos, the founder and C.E.O. of Amazon. The finished property will have eleven bedrooms, twenty-five bathrooms, five staircases, and a large ballroom suitable for gatherings of Washington’s notables. It will be, in the words of the journalist Ben Wofford, “a veritable Death Star of Washington entertaining.”

Americans have long been fascinated with the lifestyles of the rich and famous. But there is something obscene about the accumulation of $150 billion—and growing.

Will any party have the guts to raise taxes for the wealthy now that the 1% of the 1% has amassed so much wealth?

Growing inequality endangers the well-being of our society, as do concentrations of vast wealth in the hands of a small number of people. Their wealth is weaponized when they use it to undermine and control public institutions.

The veil is beginning to fall away from the billionaire-funded charter activity. There are no grassroots in this billionaire-driven “movement.” It is all about money. Without the billionaires’ money, the demand and the supply would dry up.

Inside Philanthropy looks at the funding behind Marshall Tuck, and the article assumes he has won. But millions of votes remain uncounted in California and the contest is not yet decided. At last count, the candidates were less than one percentage point apart. We will have to wait to see who wins the contest between Big Money and teachers.

On the eve of the election, spending for this election had risen to $50 million. The total is likely to be even higher when final reporting is in.

The apparent winner of the contest, Marshall Tuck, is the former president of Green Dot, a charter school network. He wants to expand charters in a state that already leads the nation in the number of such schools. The other candidate, Tony Thurmond, argued for putting the brakes on charters to address issues of transparency and accountability.

Tuck ran unsuccessfully for the same office in 2014 in a race that cost $30 million. In both cases, Tuck outspent his opponent. This year, his campaign had raised $28.5 million by election day.

The money has come from a who’s who of charter school backers and K-12 philanthropists, including Eli Broad, Reed Hastings, Lynn Schusterman, Julian Robertson, Laurene Powell Jobs, Laura and John Arnold, Dan Loeb, Michael Bloomberg and his daughter Emma, and three Waltons: Carrie Walton Penner, Alice Walton, and Jim Walton.

Among Tuck’s biggest backers was Helen Schwab, wife of the finance billionaire Charles Schwab, who gave $2 million to EdVoice for the Kids PAC, which managed independent campaign committees for Tuck; Arthur Rock, the venture capitalist, gave $3 million to EdVoice, while Doris Fisher gave over $3 million. Along with the Schwabs, Fisher has been a huge backer of charter schools as a philanthropist and a consistent mega-donor for political campaigns in this space.

A less familiar name on the list of top backers to EdVoice is businessman Bill Bloomfield. In fact, Bloomfield was the single biggest supporter of the PAC this year, with $5.3 million in donations.

What is crucial in this article is that it recognizes that the push for charters depends on billionaires who have no direct interest in public schools other than to destroy them.

Elected school boards are accountable to the people. To whom are the billionaires accountable?

The most important line in the article is the last one, which recognizes an obvious fact:

Regardless of what you think of charter schools, this seems like no way to make policy on public education, long regarded as among the most democratic institutions in America.

The Arizona Republic reports that voucher advocates are undeterred by their overwhelming defeat at the ballot box on Tuesday. The fact that the public rejected vouchers by 65-35% at the same time that rightwing Governor Doug Ducey was re-elected does not deter the Koch brothers and the DeVos family. Very likely they presume that the parents and teachers who beat them exhausted their funds.

Less than a day after the crown jewel of their school choice policies was crushed at the ballot box, prominent school choice advocates doubled down by calling for the Arizona Legislature to promote school choice and vouchers laws.

Both the Goldwater Institute and American Federation for Children issued statements backing school choice in the hours after voters rejected by a 65-35 margin Proposition 305, a massive expansion of school vouchers.

The vote overturned the Empowerment Scholarship Account expansion that would have allowed all 1.1 million Arizona public school students to use public money to attend private school. The number of students receiving the money would have been capped at 30,000.

In a statement to supporters, the Goldwater Institute said “the fight for school choice continues.”

“Empowerment Scholarship Accounts help families create a custom educational experience— one as unique as each child. Unfortunately, school choice opponents were successful in denying this option to all Arizona families, regardless of income,” Goldwater Institute President Victor Riches said in the statement.

“Across the country, ESAs have garnered the support of Republicans and Democrats alike because they provide a commonsense way for families to help pay tuition, provide tutoring, and purchase the tools they need to give their students the best chance at success in school and down the road.”

He said other states — including North Carolina and Florida — have followed Arizona and instituted ESAs for selected students.

ROBERTS: Arizona voters said ‘Hell no’ to Ducey’s school voucher plan. Will he listen?

“Arizona has been a national leader on the path to greater school choice for families,” Riches said. “The Goldwater Institute will continue the fight to give students and their families a greater say in their education in Arizona and across the country.”

Meanwhile, American Federation for the Children congratulated Republican Gov. Doug Ducey for defeating “anti-school choice” candidate Democrat David Garcia in the race for governor.

“Governor Ducey is a pro-education, pro-school choice Governor whose leadership has resulted in higher pay for teachers as well as more educational choice options for families,” said the statement from AFC’s Arizona communication director Kim Martinez. “Ducey is a staunch supporter of Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program, which helps disadvantaged children, many with special needs, access different types of schools or curriculum.”

The statement didn’t mention Prop 305.

The current voucher program, which enrolls 5,600 students at a cost of about $62 million– gives parents 90% of the funding that would have gone to their local public school district. The parents get a debit card which is supposed to cover non-public school expenses, whether for private or religious or home schooling. The program has minimal oversight or accountability. A recent survey by the Arizona Republic showed that some parents were using the debit card for personal expenses, such as cosmetics or clothing.

The ESA program gives parents 90 percent of the funding that would have otherwise gone to their local public school districts. The voucher money, loaded on debit cards, is intended to cover specific education expenses such as private- or religious-school tuition, home-school expenses and education-related therapies.

A spokeswoman for SOS Arizona, the anti-voucher organization, said they would fight renewed efforts to enact a program that the voters opposed overwhelmingly.

But of course the Koch brothers and the DeVos family have unlimited resources. The parents and educators rely on volunteers.

Reed Hastings, billionaire founder of Netflix, hates public schools. He wants to eliminate school boards and replace them with corporate management. He has spent more than $100 million promoting charter schools.

Reed Hastings: Netflix CEO Goes Nuclear on Public Schools

“Hastings’ lavish spending has raised concerns among critics who worry that the sort of technologies and efficiencies he used to build his Silicon Valley empire and is now applying to education might not work for the nation’s schoolchildren.

These concerns were raised in 2014, when Hastings, at a California Charter Schools Association meeting, asserted that public schools are hobbled by having elected schoolboards.

“Let’s think large-scale,” says Brett Bymaster, a Silicon Valley electrical engineer who broke the story about Hastings’ school board comments on his blog about Rocketship, a charter school chain supported by Hastings. “You have someone who is contributing millions and millions of dollars to local and statewide political races and who was the former president of the state school board — whose stated goal is to end democracy in education. That is deeply disturbing.”

When Hastings served as chair of the California State Board of Education, he opposed bilingual education, leading Democratic legislators to block his reappointment. While on The State Board, he led the charge to remove any limits on the number of charters in the state and to limit regulation or accountability.

“The fact that California Charter Academy, one of the country’s largest charter school operators, collapsed and left 6,000 California students without a school during his board tenure, did little to sway Hastings’ enthusiasm for publicly financed yet privately run schools. Along with helping to fund the Rocketship and Aspire charter programs, he’s served on the boards of the California Charter Schools Association and the KIPP Foundation, the largest network of charter schools in the country. And much of Hastings’ school reform efforts have focused on technological solutions. He helped launch NewSchools Venture Fund, which has invested $250 million in education entrepreneurs and “ed tech” products. He’s also been a major backer of DreamBox Learning, which develops the math software used in Rocketship schools, and the Khan Academy, an online teaching video clearinghouse.

“But so far, the outcomes of many of these ed tech ventures have been mixed. Khan Academy has been criticized for including fundamental math errors in some of its instructional videos. And while DreamBox once championed a Harvard University study that found that use of its math software was associated with test achievement gains in grades three through five, the study itself noted it could not be ruled out that the gains were “due to student motivation or teacher effectiveness, rather than to the availability of the software.” What’s more, the user data collected by programs developed at Khan Academy, DreamBox and other companies are fueling concerns over student privacy.

“More broadly, education experts are worried about the impact of minimally staffed, call center-like computer learning labs on the nation’s students and teachers, especially as this approach becomes more commonplace in the name of cost savings and innovation. (In a 2012 Washington Post article, former Rocketship CEO John Danner noted that “Rocketeers” could eventually spend 50 percent of their school day in front of computers.)”…

“When Netflix became the first major U.S. company to offer unlimited paid family leave for both male and female employees, it was criticized for extending the policy only to its white-collar employees, not blue-collar workers in charge of customer service and DVDs. And while Microsoft has required that many of its contractors and vendors provide their workers with sick days and vacation time and Google has demanded that its shuttle bus contractors pay better wages, so far Netflix has ignored calls for improved working conditions for its contract workers, says Derecka Mehrens, co-founder of Silicon Valley Rising, a campaign to raise pay and create affordable housing for low-wage workers in the tech industry.

“Mehrens sees a similar class bias in Hastings’ approach to public education. “We see profound consequences, both political and economic, when technology industry leaders take action from a position of privilege and isolation from the very communities they desire to help,” she says. “When tech industry leaders like Reed Hastings call for an elimination of school boards or for more privatization of public schools, they block low-income people from using the one instrument that the powerful can’t ignore – their vote.”

“Hastings’ end goal for California appears to be the near-total replacement of traditional public schools with charter schools. In his 2014 speech where he discussed abolishing elected school boards, Hastings pointed to New Orleans – whose school system was largely taken over by the State of Louisiana after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and converted to the country’s first predominantly charter public school system – as a model:

“So what we have to do is to work with school districts to grow steadily, and the work ahead is really hard because we’re at eight percent of students [in charters] in California, whereas in New Orleans they’re at 90 percent, so we have a lot of catchup to do… So what we have to do is continue to grow and grow… It’s going to take 20-30 years to get to 90 percent of charter kids.”

For his contempt for public schools and his determination to remove democratic governance of education, I hereby place Reed Hastings on this blog’s Wall of Shame.

The United Teachers of Los Angeles have voted to authorize a strike. The union has been negotiating with Superintendent Austin Beutner, a former investment banker who has no experience in education.

I sent the following message to the teachers of Los Angeles.

I am writing to my friends who teach in the Los Angeles Unified School District to encourage you to stay strong in your demands for smaller classes and the resources your students need.

Your working conditions are your students’ learning conditions.

You should not be expected to pay out $1,000 or more from your salary for school supplies.

I am astonished that one of the cities with the greatest concentration of wealth in the world is unwilling to pay what it costs to educate its children.

John Dewey wrote more than a century ago: “What the best and wisest parent wants for his children, that must we want for all the children of the community. Anything less is unlovely, and left unchecked, destroys our democracy.”

The billionaires who have declared war on public education and who are funding the California Charter School Association would not tolerate overcrowded classrooms, obsolete textbooks, and crumbling buildings in the schools their children attend. They should not tolerate such conditions in the public schools of Los Angeles that other people’s children attend, people without their wealth.

They want the best for their children, and they should demand the best for all children, and pay for it.

Please fight against “school choice,” an idea that was first launched by segregationists in the South to block the Brown decision in the late 1950s. It is now the favorite cause of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, who wants to replace our nation’s democratically-controlled public schools with a menu of “choices,” none of which are as good as public schools.

In California, as elsewhere, charter advocates oppose accountability and transparency. Furthermore, charters have been characterized by scandals and fraudulent financial practices, a result of their lack of oversight and accountability.

Charter schools should be subject to the same laws, rules, and regulations as public schools if they want to give themselves the name of “public schools.”

Your superintendent Austin Beutner came to the job thanks to a takeover bankrolled by the charter lobby. He has never been an educator, and you will have to help him understand the importance of teacher professionalism, of reducing class sizes, and of public education in a democratic society. He just doesn’t get it.

Public schools are, have been, and will continue to be the foundation stone of our democratic society. If we lose it, we put our democracy at risk.

Fight for your students. Fight for public education. Fight for the teaching profession. Fight for a better future for the children and for our society.

Your friends across the nation are watching and will cheer you on!

Diane Ravitch

The race for State Superintendent of Instruction in California is the most expensive in history for a top state education
job. California-based Capital & Main predicts the spending will top $50 million, with Marshall Tuck outspending Tony Thurmond by 2-1.

All the usual billionaires have clustered behind Tuck—the Waltons, Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg, Reed Hastings, etc.

The Republican Party has embraced Tuck. Its gubernatorial candidate John H. Cox endorsed Tuck on Saturday on Twitter.

But that’s not all.

Wealthy Charter Backers Flood California Schools Chief Race With Cash

The billionaires want this job, and they want it bad. Tuck is their man. He is also the Republican party’s man.

Capitol & Main writes:

One problem with having the Walmart Waltons foot a candidate’s bills is the presumptive link to the far-right agenda of Trump education secretary Betsy DeVos. Carrie Walton Penner’s support for DeVos included a board seat on her pet pro-voucher organization, Alliance for School Choice. Tuck’s moneyed backers are also betting big on neoliberal neophyte Buffy Wicks (and against progressive firebrand Jovanka Beckles) to fill Thurmond’s Assembly District 15 seat. If successful, Wicks could help dilute any legislative fixes of charters before they reach the desk of Gavin Newsom, the gubernatorial bête noir of the California Charter School Association.

One advantage to having Walmart-sized buying power is traction. In mid-October, EdVoice’s $8.55 million “thermonuclear” media response to a $3 million pro-Thurmond ad buy had Tuck squeaking ahead in the polls by October 24.

That lead widened in last Wednesday’s University of California, Berkeley IGS Poll, with Tuck polling 48 percent to Thurmond’s 36 (although a self-survey on iSideWith.com has Thurmond at 46 and Tuck at 34). The poll noted that 64 percent of Republicans favored Tuck, compared to 14 percent for Thurmond.

Tuck’s appeal to the right is no accident. Last week, members of California’s congressional delegation called on Tuck to disavow the $233,000 EdVoice has spent to plaster his face on Republican slate mailers around the state. During the primary, Tuck appeared on reelection mailers for key Trump allies Devin Nunes (R-CA 22) and Kevin McCarthy (R-CA 23). This time out, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA 13) complained, he’s effectively helping Republicans in districts key to Democratic hopes to flip Congress in Tuesday’s hoped-for blue wave. They include the 25th District, where 31-year-old Katie Hill appears poised to knock out Republican Steve Knight, and the 45th District, where UC Irvine law professor Katie Porter hopes to retire Orange County Trump loyalist Mimi Walters. And on Saturday, Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox tweeted his endorsement of Tuck, alongside that of Republican EdVoice cofounder Steve Poizner for state insurance commissioner.

Tuck is also taking heat for EdVoice attack ads tarring Thurmond with racially tinged falsehoods. On Thursday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California objected to its name being used on a Tuck slate mailer that doubled down on debunked claims in an EdVoice TV spot that the Obama White House “reprimanded” Thurmond over mishandling of Title IX claims when he was a school board member. That ad earned Tuck an angry censure by state Democratic Party Women’s Caucus Chair Christine Pelosi and Southern Chair Carolyn Fowler, along with NAACP Hawaii president Alice Huffman, over the ad’s alleged use of racist “dog whistles” and for “being willing to weaponize children’s trauma.”

The record-shattering spending on Tuck ultimately mirrors the threat level that a Sacramento without Jerry Brown represents to EdVoice executive director Bill Lucia. With Gavin Newsom ahead of his Republican opponent, John Cox, by 18 points in Wednesday’s poll, Newsom’s pledges for greater accountability and a moratorium on further expansion in charter-heavy districts are the stuff that keeps California school privatizers turning in their sleep. Of the supe candidates, Tuck alone has flatly rejected a “pause” in favor of limited financial help to those districts for orderly downsizing through school closures and mass teacher layoffs. For the laissez-faire ed-reform faithful, “disruption” is proof that deregulated markets and robust competition are working.

The Network for Public Education Action Fund warns you not to vote for candidates in local school board races funded by billionaires who are committed to privatizing public schools.

In Alexandria, Virginia, two school board candidates are funded by a PAC created by billionaires and by TFA’s political arm called Leadership for Educational Equity. These billionaire-funded PACs are not local. They are “investing” in school board candidates across the country. They are flying below the radar, trying to buy local elections with their “investments.”

Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education Action Fund writes:

It has come to our attention that 2 candidates for School Board in the Alexandria race have received over $16,000 each from a billionaire funded PAC and a related non-profit organization connected to TFA that promotes corporate reform.

Christopher Suarez running in District A received a total of $6,300 from a 501 (c)(4) organization called Leadership for Educational Equity (LEE). LEE is a $21 million non-profit with Emma Bloomberg (daughter of NYC’s Michael Bloomberg), Arthur Rock (billionaire from California), and Steuart Walton (heir to the Walmart fortune) on its board. This non-profit interferes in elections across the country to promote former TFAers who push charter schools and the corporate reform agenda. Its related PAC, Leaders in Education, contributed $10,000 as well to Friends of Christopher Suarez.

The related PAC has been funded nearly exclusively in 2018 by Michael Bloomberg, Arthur Rock, members of the Walton family and the related c4 organization, LEE.

NPE Action proudly endorsed Michelle Rief​ in this election a few months ago.

Veronica Nolan who is running in District B also received the same funding from LEE and its PAC.

We strongly recommend that NPE Action subscribers encourage friends and family in Alexandria to not vote for either Christopher Suarez or Veronica Nolan in the school board race and instead vote for Michelle Rief in District A and the strongest pro-public education candidate that is challenging Nolan in District B.

Please share this email on Facebook and social media with this link.

I recently received an e-mail from a member of the California School Boards Association, whom I met last year in San Diego when I spoke at its convention. He wondered why the super-rich from in-State and out-of-State (like Michael Bloomberg of New York and Alice Walton of Bentonville, Arkansas) have given Marshall Tuck about $30 Million for his campaign to become State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Three Times What Tony Thurmond has raised. Tuck was a hedge fund manager who became CEO of Green Dot charter schools, then ran a small number of schools in the Mayor’s special district in Los Angeles. He performed no miracles. Those schools performed no better and mostly worse than comparable public schools. Why are the billionaires so intent on putting him in charge of all California’s schools?

He wrote:

Here’s my question:

Why is there so much $ going to Charter Schools?

Why is there so much money flowing into Tuck’s campaign?

What is in it for these donors?

They are millionaires who would seem to have no interest in public education.

It simply cannot be all altruism, that they want to provide a good education for Black and Brown children, or the (mistaken) belief that our schools are broken and need Marshall Tuck (or whoever) to swoop down and fix them.

What will they get out of helping Marshall Tuck’s Campaign?

If Tuck wins, he will be able to create more charter schools, but why would these donors want that? There is some big money in it for them somewhere that I am missing.

Here is my response to the questions.

Dear Anonymous:

The charter industry and its funders are worried. They are not acting out of confidence, but out of anxiety.

They know that they have been pushing charters (and vouchers) since 1990, and have little to show for it.

They are desperate for a win. Even though they are harming public schools, they want to win an election to prove their power. They are surely not motivated by altruism because they know there is no evidence for the superiority of charter schools and school choice. At very little cost to themselves, they are prepared to undermine public education and harm the vast majority of American children to salve their vanity.

Once upon a time, they might have fielded their pro-charter candidate and assumed he would win because of the popularity of charters. But the mask is off. Betsy DeVos loves charters. The Koch brothers love charters. Cities around the state have seen their public schools stripped of resources that were transferred to charters. The charters pushed out the kids they didn’t want. The word “charter” is almost as odious as the word “voucher,” which is why the charteristas go to great lengths to disguise themselves as public schools when they are in fact private contractors receiving public funds, with minimal oversight or accountability.

The bloom is off the rose. The promises didn’t happen. Marshall Tuck says he is not all about charters, but his backers certainly are. The interesting thing here is that the charters pretend not to be at the center of the race because the public is suspicious of them. They are at the center of the race. Tuck’s money machine is counting on him to expand the number of charters and remove any oversight.

California has experienced many scandals and frauds. You can read about some of them in Carol Burris’s “Charters and Consequences.” California is a prime target for national charter corporations, who invade local districts, siphoning away students and resources.

Many people think that the goal of the charter industry is to turn a profit, and for some entrepreneurs, that is true. K12 Inc., which operates CAVA (the California Vitual Academy) is a for-profit Corporation, and despite the recent law banning for-profit charters, it will be around for several more years. Others make “profits” via exorbitant salaries.

The billionaires and millionaires have various motives.

Some naively continue to believe that charter schools are “saving poor kids from failing schools” and they don’t have time to learn the facts: that charters kick out the kids they don’t want and divert resources from the schools that take everyone.

Some have a passionate commitment to the free market and competition. Surely the billionaires don’t want to make money from charters. Some believe that market forces lift all boats.

Some entrepreneurs and investors are making money from real estate deals.

California voters will decide in a few days if they want Tuck or Thurmond.

The fraud can continue a while longer.

Eventually voters and the public will understand that school choice exacerbates segregation and provides no remedies.

Even the billionaires will have to face their own failure.

The question that we cannot escape is how long it will take to begin to rebuild a first-class public education system staffed by experienced teachers, offering small classes and wraparound services? How much longer will we follow false prophets and search for miracle cures?