Archives for category: Billionaires
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

California: Tony Thurmond Needs Our Help As Billionaires Swarm to Aid Marshall Tuck

By dianeravitch
September 26, 2018 //
15

Tony Thurmond, candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction, needs our help. The charter industry and billionaires are showering millions of dollars on his opponent Marshall Tuck. Despite the widespread graft and corruption in California’s charter industry, the billionaires want to continue expanding their “market share” of students and draining resources from the public schools.

Please donate whatever you can to Tony Thurmond’s campaign.

The race for state superintendent has become the key race in the state because the gubernatorial race appears to be a slam dunk for Gavin Newsom, the Democratic candidate, who is leading his little-known Republican opponent by double digits.

Tuck has been endorsed by Arne Duncan and the state Republican Party.

Thurmond has been endorsed by the California Teachers Association and the Los Angeles Times.

Think of this race as the Public School Candidate vs. the Charter School Candidate, and it explains why the usual herd of billionaires are supporting Tuck. If they can capture this key spot, California’s public schools will be in deep trouble.

“With seven weeks to go before Election Day, fundraising for Tuck has already surpassed what his supporters raised in the former school administrator’s unsuccessful run for superintendent four years ago.

“This is going to be the most expensive election, period,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a professor at the University of Southern California’s Sol Price School of Public Policy…

“Thurmond is a former social worker, school board member and council member in Richmond. Tuck is the former president of Green Dot Public Schools, a charter school organization based in Los Angeles, and CEO of the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, a district-city initiative that runs 18 district schools.

“Tuck will benefit from $10.8 million raised by an independent expenditure committee backing him as of Monday, compared to $4.9 million raised by an independent committee supporting Thurmond.

“In addition, Tuck raised $3.1 million in direct contributions to his campaign through June 30, the most recent reporting deadline, outpacing Thurmond’s $2.1 million in direct contributions…

“Wealthy donors pushing to expand charter schools in California have driven much of the spending to support Tuck so far by pouring large donations into the Sacramento political advocacy organization EdVoice For The Kids PAC, which runs the committee backing Tuck. Although EdVoice has donated to dozens of candidates over the past two years, nearly 90 percent of the money it gave as of the most recent reporting date went to its Tuck committee, which calls itself Students, Parents and Teachers supporting Marshall Tuck for Superintendent of Public Instruction 2018, a project of EdVoice. EdVoice officials did not respond to an interview request.

“Contributors to EdVoice include venture capitalist Arthur Rock, who gave $3 million, real estate developer Bill Bloomfield who gave $2.9 million and philanthropist Eli Broad who gave $1.3 million….

“Neither candidate can be simply characterized as “pro-charter” or “anti-charter.” Each has said there is a role for effective charter schools in public education and that the schools need greater transparency and oversight. They both support a ban on for-profit charter schools that was recently signed into law.

“But Tuck and Thurmond have differed over how to handle the growth of California’s charter schools, which in some areas have attracted students and state funding from traditional school districts. Thurmond has hinted he could support a moratorium on new charter schools. Tuck opposes that idea and has instead called for the state to keep in place funding for districts affected by charter school growth for a time, so those districts can adjust to lower enrollment.”

There is the key difference between them. Tuck wants to manage the continued shrinkage of public schools, while Thurmond wants to stop the shrinkage and rebuild public schools.

Here is a Tuck supporter:

“Rebecca Morgan — a former Bank of America executive and former Republican state senator from the South Bay — cited Tuck’s time in Los Angeles, where he led Green Dot Public Schools, a charter school network, and the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, as one of the reasons she supports him. Morgan has contributed $500,000 to EdVoice.

“Marshall has proven that he understands education and he knows how to turn around school districts, as he has done in Los Angeles,” Morgan said. “He is not in the pocket of any organization, as Thurmond is with the teachers union.”

“Asked how much more she is willing to spend to elect Tuck, Morgan said, “Lots.””

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, California, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Privatization

Jim Miller: Who Will Save Us from the Billionaire “Saviors”?

By dianeravitch
September 26, 2018 //
26

Jim Miller, professor at the San Diego City College, has posed exactly the right question: Who will save us from “our billionaire saviors?” The question was inspired by Andrea Gabor’s excellent new book After the Education Wars, and by the possibility that billionaire Michael Bloomberg will run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020.

In New York City, we remember him as a data-driven, test-loving, top-down Reformer, who hired non-educator Joel Klein to terrorize teachers and principals and introduce choice and charters. The result was a public relations success and an education failure. Much boasting, vast disruption, constant reorganization. Change for the sake of change. Bloomberg is one of the billionaires identified in the NPE report about the super-rich who fund anti-public education candidates in state and local elections.

Miller writes:

After failing to prop-up Antonio Villaraigosa’s flagging gubernatorial campaign last June, Michael Bloomberg apparently spent the summer pondering whether it would be wiser for him to personally save the United States rather than waste his time trying to rescue California by proxy. Last week the New York Times reported that Bloomberg was mulling a run for the Presidency as a Democrat because that represented the most viable path to victory. As the Times story observed, while Bloomberg has engaged in some good work on guns and the environment, many of his other positions might not be very likely to win over the liberal base of the Democratic Party…

As Andrea Gabor, (ironically) the Bloomberg chair of business journalism at Baruch College/CUNY, writes in her excellent new book After the Education Wars: How Smart Schools Upend the Business of Reform, Bloomberg’s reign in New York hardly represented a golden era for education: “to be an educator in Bloomberg’s New York was a little like being a Trotskyite in Bolshevik Russia—never fully trusted and ultimately sidelined…”

The business reformers came to the education table with their truths: a belief in market competition and quantitative measures. They came with their prejudices—favoring ideas and expertise forged in corporate boardrooms over knowledge and experience gleaned in the messy trenches of inner-city classrooms. They came with distrust of an education culture that values social justice over more practical considerations like wealth and position. They came with the arrogance that elevated polished, but often mediocre (or worse), technocrats over scruffy but knowledgeable educators. And most of all, they came with their suspicion—even their hatred—of organized labor and their contempt for ordinary public school teachers.

What this has resulted in, according to Gabor, is that the corporate reformers “adopted all the wrong lessons from American business.” Rather than innovating by harnessing “the energy and the knowledge of ordinary employees,” who are the most “knowledgeable about problems—and solutions” because they know the process, the billionaire boys club has favored a punitive, hierarchical, undemocratic, one-size fits all approach that has hurt students more than it has helped them.

Wedded to a factory-style approach to education, corporate reformers “focused on a Taylorite effort to standardize teaching so that teachers can be easily substituted like widgets on an assembly line. This despite the fact that, on average, ‘unions have a positive effect on student achievement’ and the best charter schools are often the independent charters that give teachers voice, often via union contracts.” All of this reflects the fact, Gabor reminds us, that “the corporate education-reform movement has deeply undemocratic roots.”

What this movement has brought us is not pretty. We have systematically devalued the “art” of teaching in favor of a dumbed-down, accountability regimen that prefers standardization and over-testing to empowering educators and students to think more creatively and independently. It has assailed teachers and attacked educational culture to such a degree that it should be no surprise that our society has become increasingly anti-intellectual and hostile to fact-based analysis. As Gabor observes of the Trump era:

[T]he election of this larger-than-life Chucky demagogue, with his multiple bankruptcies and divorces, his sexual predations and business malfeasance, his hate-filled speeches and tweets, also represented a failure of corporate-style education reform as it has taken shape over more than twenty years. Among an electorate that often favors “ordinary” people they can identify with, Trump, the consummate philistine—unread and uninterested, crude, unthinking, and disdainful of facts and any attempt at rational truth—holds up a dystopian mirror of the electorate…

It may not have been the intended outcome of those who simply wished to produce a more useful workforce, but it does show the profound limits of their debased instrumentalism. Hence Gabor again observes: “Corporate education reformers cannot be directly blamed for the ascendance of Trump. However, over two decades of an ed-reform apparatus that has emphasized the production of math and ELA test scores over civics and learning for learning’s sake has helped produce an electorate that is ignorant of constitutional democracy and thus more vulnerable to demagoguery.”

Gabor’s thorough study does more than just criticize the failures of corporate education reform. She outlines how multiple examples of innovative educational practices across the country have defied the technocratic dictates of the well-heeled and focused instead on “bottom-up” strategies that have relied heavily on “a participative, collaborative, deeply democratic approach to continuous improvement, drawing on diverse constituencies—including students, teachers, and local business leaders—in their effort.”

Thus, there are some insights to be found in approaches that rely on “local democracy” that can help do right for our children and the society at large. Following these examples, rather than the lead of self-important billionaires, is where we can find hope for a better education system and a more democratic society.

As for Bloomberg, maybe he should just go away and let the people lead. We’ve had too much “reform” from self-declared rich saviors and philanthrocapitalists already. In fact, it’s long past time that we save ourselves from them.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Data, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization, Testing

Mira Debs: How Jeff Bezos Should Spend His $2 Billion in Philanthropy

By dianeravitch
September 24, 2018 //
17

Mira Debs, Executive Director of the Yale Education Studies Program, thinks Jeff Bezos should use his riches to help existing, top-quality Montessori programs instead of starting his own schools. He got off to a bad start by saying that “the child is the customer.” Ugh! Children are children, not customers!

She writes:


Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, surprised the education world when he announced this month that he was donating $2 billion to support homeless families and create a network of free Montessori-inspired preschools.

It’s a compelling demonstration of the power of quality early childhood education that Mr. Bezos may have been inspired by a Montessori program he attended for a year and a half in the 1960s.

At face value, the donation is a much needed investment in early childhood education that could potentially help fill the child-care gap for many low-income families. In his announcement, Mr. Bezos highlighted his desire to find and spread the “good in the world.” But his plan to create new organizations, however worthy, would duplicate the efforts of grass-roots programs in need of a serious cash infusion.

Mr. Bezos should be congratulated for moving beyond the small circle of urban charter schools favored by other philanthropists. Many of these charter schools have been criticized for their rigid discipline. In contrast, Montessori classrooms focus on developing children’s independence and self-control, delivering academic results along the way. Recent research by Angelene Lillard of the University of Virginia and colleagues found that children from lower-income families who won a lottery spot in a public Montessori program were more likely to catch up to their wealthier peers than children who did not get a spot and attended programs elsewhere.

Mr. Bezos could follow in the footsteps of Roslyn Williams, a Montessori educator who founded the Central Harlem Association of Montessori Parents in 1967 to create integrated Montessori preschools in New York. Ms. Williams argued that Montessori education should go from being the “the rich child’s right” to “the poor child’s opportunity.”

Yet Mr. Bezos’s aim of creating his own network to run these preschools puts him in danger of falling into the trap of the “charitable-industrial complex,” following tech colleagues like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates who have poured large sums of money into top-down educational strategies: saving Newark’s schools and improving teaching, gifts that have been shown to have a limited impact.

In this case, it’s not that families from underserved communities don’t want Montessori preschools, it’s that they have been creating them for a long time. Over the last four years, I’ve been doing research on public Montessori schools, and I helped start a public Montessori school in New Haven and a grass-roots network of Montessori educators. I learned that even though Montessori has a reputation for being a private, elite form of schooling, there is a long history of educators who have worked to make Montessori accessible to children from low-income backgrounds.

In Washington, Detroit, Dallas and other cities, there is a growing momentum to expand public Montessori programs. Today, 511 public Montessori programs have approximately 125,000 children ages 3 to 18 around the country, more than half of them students of color.

Instead of creating his own network, Mr. Bezos should consider funding schools that are already doing the work he admires. Consider the 50 public Montessori programs in Puerto Rico created by Ana María García Blanco beginning in 1990, programs that are now at risk of closing because of school reorganization efforts after Hurricane Maria. Public Montessori programs could use a fund to train teachers, buy materials and build buildings. Groups like Embracing Equity, City Garden Montessori and the Indigenous Montessori Institute are working to develop anti-bias, anti-racist curriculums and diversify the pool of Montessori teachers.

Rather than considering the children of these future schools his “customers,” albeit tuition-free customers, Mr. Bezos could orient himself toward viewing the underserved as his collaborators. Families have been organizing to create Montessori and other preschools for their children for a long time. A truly revolutionary philanthropic fund would not create a separate network, but seek out the schools, the community centers, the storefront start-ups and the other dreams in waiting.

Mira Debs (@mira_debs) is the executive director of the Yale Education Studies program, a lecturer in sociology and the author of the forthcoming book, “Diverse Families, Desirable Schools: Public Montessori in an Era of School Choice.”

Categories Billionaires, Early Childhood Education

Mercedes Schneider: The Billionaires Behind TFA’s Drive for Power

By dianeravitch
September 23, 2018 //
11

Mercedes Schneider will lead a workshop at the Network for Public Education conference in Indianapolis on Oct 20-21 about how to be a financial sleuth. Find out who is funding the “rephormers” in your state or community.

In this post, she gives a lesson and unmasks TFA’s drive for political power.

Teach for America presents itself as a wholesome charity and raises money to send fresh-faced, inexperienced young college graduates into needy schools. At its inception, it was supposed to fill vacant positions, but now TFA will cheerfully replace experienced teachers for districts trying to save money. TFA is also the labor force for non-union charter schools (i.e. scabs), with the energy to work 70-hour Weeks and no family obligations.

TFA has a political arm, which is not so well known. It is called Leaders for Educational Equity (LEE),which is deceptively named, like all rephorm groups (which swear they are in this business “for the kids,” for “equity,” to ”close achievement gaps,” etc.).

Schneider investigated the funding behind LEE. You will not be surprised to learn it is the usual billionaires.

“According to the LEE site, LEE membership is free to all TFAers. And why not? The purpose of TFA and its related orgs is to catapult those who taught for five minutes into positions of power and authority over the American classroom.

“Such catapulting requires loads of money– which brings us to those financially-loaded, Leaders in Education PAC donors:

“The PAC is primarily funded by members of the Walton family (note that Carrie Penner is Carrie Walton Penner) and by Arthur Rock. Michael Bloomberg makes an appearance, as does Purdue Pharma-OxyContin first son and venture capitalist, Jonathan Sackler.”

Aren’t you relieved to know that the opioid billions of the Sackler family are being spent on helping TFA grads gain political power, in addition to the expansion of the charter industry?

Wherever you see the name Walton, you can be sure they are pushing non-union charters and a vision of corporate charter chains that reflect the Walmart ideals of cheap and fast and everywhere.

I am in the middle of reading “Winners Take All,” and hear the author’s words in my head. The elites like to destroy public institutions, then offer to step in and solve the problems they created by funding a new institution, under their control.

Teach for America is meant to undermine the teaching profession by offering up eager and idealistic young people who are happy to work for a meager salary that won’t support a family or a decent standard of living. They provide the workers for the charters beloved by billionaires, whose purpose is to drain resources and destroy the public schools.

Be informed. Vote.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Education Reform, Teach for America, Teachers, Unions

District Court in D.C. Strikes a Blow Against Dark Money

By dianeravitch
September 19, 2018 //
9

One of the stains on Democracy is “Dark Money,” that, anonymous donors who make large political contributions while masking their identity. The Koch brothers and other funders of corporate assaults on democracy used such conduits. In education elections, such groups as Education Reform Now and the California Charter School Association Advocates hide their donors names. A few years back, California held a referendum about raising taxes to support schools. Certain well-known billionaires publicly supported the tax but quietly funded a Dark Money campaign to defeat it.

The chief judge of the Federal District Court ruled that the names of all those who make political donations must be released, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. This is great news for those who believe in transparency and democracy!

Advocacy groups pouring money into independent campaigns to impact this fall’s midterm races must disclose many of their political donors beginning this week after the Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in a long-running case.

The high court did not grant an emergency request to stay a ruling by a federal judge in Washington who had thrown out a decades-old Federal Election Commission regulation allowing nonprofit groups to keep their donors secret unless they had earmarked their money for certain purposes.

With less than 50 days before this fall’s congressional elections, the ruling has far-reaching consequences that could curtail the ability of major political players to raise money and force the disclosure of some of the country’s wealthiest donors.

In an interview, FEC Chairwoman Caroline Hunter said that the names of certain contributors who give money to nonprofit groups to use in political campaigns beginning Wednesday will have to be publicly reported.

Hunter and other conservatives warned the decision could have a chilling effect just as the midterms are heating up.

“It’s unfortunate that citizens and groups who wish to advocate for their candidate will now have to deal with a lot of uncertainty less than two months before the election,” said Hunter, a Republican appointee.

Advocates for stricter regulation of money in politics celebrated the move.

“This is a great day for transparency and democracy,” Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which brought the case, said in a statement, adding: “We’re about to know a lot more about who is funding our elections.”

Yes, it throws “uncertainty” into the election when donors have to be known to the public.

It is unclear whether the decision is retroactive.

Since Citizens United was approved by the Supreme Court, Big Money has been unlimited in campaign spending. Now it faces the “uncertainty” of being publicly identified.

Boo hoo.

NPR reports:

“The Supreme Court’s decision comes less than a week after a new research report by the government reform group Issue One, which puts some dollar amounts on what these unreported donors are giving. The report, which took a year of research, finds that the top 15 politically active nonprofits raised and spent more than $600 million on campaigns between 2010, when Citizens United boosted secret fundraising, and 2016.

“The secret giving is made possible by a regulatory loophole at the FEC. The groups, usually organized as 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations or 501(c)(6) business associations, don’t register as political committees with the commission. With the loophole, the FEC wants donor disclosure only when a donor earmarks the money for specific ads.

“The top four spenders identified by Issue One are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the mainstream conservative Crossroads GPS, the Koch network’s Americans for Prosperity and the National Rifle Association. Issue One says that collectively, the four groups pumped at least $357 million into elections between 2010 and 2016.

“Opaque organizations are using contributions from opaque donors and secretly funding election campaigns and ads that are urging viewers to vote for or against candidates,” said Michael Beckel, research manager at Issue One. “And it remains very difficult to track back the true sources of dark money groups.”

“Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity has launched AFP Action — a superPAC that will regularly report its donors to the FEC, sidestepping the disclosure controversy.”

Categories Billionaires, Dark Money, Education Industry

Steven Singer: The U.S. Shortchanged Public Schools by Hundreds of Billions of Dollars

By dianeravitch
September 19, 2018 //
18

Steven Singer describes a new report that reached a startling conclusion: the federal government shortchanged the nation’s public schools by hundreds of billions, at the same time that the top earners raked in billions of dollars.

He writes, in part:

Fun Fact: Between 2005 and 2017, the federal government withheld $580 billion it had promised to spend on students from poor families and students with disabilities.

Fun Fact: Over that same period, the personal net worth of the nation’s 400 wealthiest people ballooned by $1.57 trillion.

So, rich people, consider this the bill.

A new report called “Confronting the Education Debt” commissioned by the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools (AROS) details the shortfall in minute detail.

For instance:

$347 billion owed to educate low-income students most of whom are children of color.

$233 billion owed to provide services for students with disabilities.

And this is just the shortfall of the last dozen years! That’s just money due to children who recently graduated or are currently in the school system!

We’ve been cheating our children out of the money we owe them for more than half a century!

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Budget Cuts, Funding, Poverty, Standardized Testing, U.S. Department of Education

Jeff Bryant: How the Rich Get Richer by Destroying Public Schools

By dianeravitch
September 18, 2018 //
26

I think we are beginning to understand the real purpose of Corporate Reform. The 1% and their minions repeat ad nauseum that school choice will fix all education problems, lift the poor out of poverty, and no new taxes are needed. Indeed, they have pushed for tax cuts and cheered on deep cuts to public education. We are watching a generation of defunding public schools, refusing to invest in teachers’ salaries, and a massive transfer of resources from the public sector to private institutions.

Jeff Bryant explains it here.

“Recent news stories about wealthy folks giving multi-million donations to education efforts have drawn both praise and criticism, but two new reports by public education advocacy groups this week are particularly revealing about the real impact rich people have on schools and how they’ve chosen to leverage their money to influence the system.

‘The Education Debt’

“The first report, “Confronting the Education Debt” from the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools examines the nation’s “education debt” – the historic funding shortfall for school systems that educate black and brown children. The authors find that through a combination of multiple factors – including funding rollbacks, tax cuts, and diversions of public money to private entities – the schools educating the nation’s poorest children have been shorted billions in funding.

“One funding source alone, the federal dollars owed to states for educating low-income children and children with disabilities, shorted schools $580 billion, between 2005 and 2017, in what the government is lawfully required to fund schools through the provisions of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

“The impact of not fully funding Title I is startling, the report contends, calculating that at full funding, the nation’s highest-poverty schools could provide health and mental health services for every student including dental and vision services, and these schools would have the money to hire a full-time nurse, a full-time librarian, and either an additional full-time counselor or a full-time teaching assistant for every classroom.

“State and local governments contribute to underfunding too by keeping in place tax systems that chronically short schools, particularly those that educate low-income students, mostly of color. Two school districts in Illinois are highlighted – one where 80 percent of students are low-income and gets about $7,808 per pupil in total expenditures, while another, where 3 percent of students are low-income, spends $26,074 per student…

“In the meantime, while the nation’s education debt expands, the accumulated wealth of the richest Americans continues to grow. During that time period the federal government was shorting schools billions, the personal net worth of the nation’s 400 wealthiest individuals grew by $1.57 trillion, the report notes.

“There is a direct correlation between dwindling resources for public schools and the ongoing political proclivity for transferring public dollars to the nation’s wealthiest individuals and corporations,” the report declares. “The rich are getting richer. Our schools are broke on purpose.”

This is the context for Bryant’s discussion of the NPE Action Report, “Hijacked by Billionaires.” The 1% buy control of state and local races so they can advance their tax-cutting, budget-cutting ideas and promote school choice.

“What motivates these wealthy people from exerting their will in the electoral process varies. They are bipartisan politically. Some are directly connected to the charter school industry. Others have expressed disdain for democratically controlled schools and argue, instead, for school governance to transfer to unelected boards. Some are motivated by their hatred of teachers’ unions. While others believe strongly that public education needs to be opened up to market competition from charters.

“But what billionaire donors all have in common, the report authors write, is their devotion to blaming schools and educators for problems posed by educating low-income children. Instead of using their political donations to advocate for more direct aid to schools serving low-income kids, wealthy donors “distract us from policy changes that would really help children,” the report argues, “such as increasing the equity and adequacy of school funding, reducing class sizes, providing medical care and nutrition for students, and other specific efforts to meet the needs of children and families.”

Their one unifying idea is lower taxes.

His third example is a new book about how predatory elites subvert democracy.

“Rich people are playing a double game,” writes Anand Giridharadas in his new book ‘Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World.’ “On one hand, there’s no question they’re giving away more money than has ever been given away in history … But I also argue that we have one of the more predatory elites in history, despite that philanthropy.”

Categories Billionaires, Budget Cuts, Corporate Reformers, Democracy, Education Industry, Funding, Inequality, Inequity, Injustice, Philanthropy, Privatization

Ohio: After ECOT Scandal, Why is Mike DeWine Still Taking Money From For-Profit Charter Operators?

By dianeravitch
September 16, 2018 //
10

An ally in Ohio read NPE’s “Hijacked by Billionaires,” about the purchase of elections by the rich, and she wrote this letter to the editor:


There is no excuse for allowing the ECOT $1 billion charter school fraud to continue for 18 years. Concerns were raised beginning in 2002, and our elected officials looked the other way to protect their campaign coffers.

Why is Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine finally taking legal action against William Lager? If it’s illegal now for Lager to direct taxpayer money to his companies, why wasn’t that a crime years ago?

AG DeWine donated $12,533 in Lager contributions to charity, but Mike DeWine continues to take campaign cash from for-profit charter school companies.

The DeWine/Husted gubernatorial campaign recently received $10,000 from J. C. Huizenga, a member of the board of directors of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy “think-tank.” Huizenga is also one of the major funders of All Children Matter, Inc., which still owes Ohio a $5 million election fine that DeWine’s office has been reluctant to collect. Huizenga’s charter school company, National Heritage Academies, is closely affiliated with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC.) Like his colleague Betsy DeVos, does Mr. Huizenga also expect a favorable return on his investment?

It’s time for Ohio voters to elect pro-public education candidates in November. Our children are counting on us!

Jeanne Melvin,

Columbus

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corruption, Dark Money, Ohio, Privatization

Peter Greene: None Dare Call It “Philanthropy”

By dianeravitch
September 16, 2018 //
26

In this post, Peter Greene spells out the difference between philanthropy and the desire to control the lives of others.

One is generous, the other is a blunt use of power to gratify one’s own ego.

One helps people achieve the goals they have set for themselves, the other imposes the donor’s will on unwilling and resistant recipients, whose voice is silenced.

“Modern fauxlanthropy is not about helping people; it’s about buying control, about hiring people to promote your own program and ideas. It’s about doing an end run around the entire democratic process, even creating positions that never existed, like Curriculum Director of the United States, and then using sheer force of money to appoint yourself to that position. It’s about buying compliance.

“It is privatization. It is about taking a section of the public sector and buying control of it so that you can run it as if it was your own personal possession.”

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Broad Foundation, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Injustice, Koch Brothers, Philanthropy, Shame, Walton Foundation

Peter Greene: What’s Wrong with Jeff Bezos’ Philanthropy: Everything

By dianeravitch
September 15, 2018 //
17

When Peter Greene learned that Jeff Bezos and his wife planned to allocate $2 Billion to creating their own preschools and helping the homeless, he was appalled.

Greene has a better idea for the billionaire class: They should pay their taxes. More taxes.

“Jeff Bezos (and his wife) starting pre-K schools is stupid. Let me count the ways (in no particular order).

“This damn guy

“It’s a stupid small pledge on his part. Yes, $2 billion is a chunk of money (aka more money than any teacher will ever make in their lifetime), but it’s chump change to Bezos. As this piece points out, it’s about 1% of his wealth. It’s considerably less than some of his fellow billionaire dabblers have donated. This is the exact opposite of a “we’ll spend whatever it takes to do this right” pledge.

“His concept is stupid, as witnessed by the oft-quoted “the child will be the customer.” This is, in its own way, as stupid as the many rich amateur education “experts” who insist that the child is the product. In our current hyper-commercial environment, as exemplified by the cutthroat capitalism of Amazon.com, the customer is a business’s adversary, the mark from whom pennies must be shaken loose by any means necessary, in return for which, the vendor will provide the absolute minimum they can get away with. How is this a good model for schools? A business has no relationship with a customer (though it may serve the business well to dupe the customer into thinking there’s a relationship there). The interactions are purely transactional– you give me some money, I give you whatever goods or services the money was supposed to pay for. The rest of the customer’s life and concerns are immaterial. How is this a good model for schools? Schools should help create educated citizens, help students become their best selves, create the public for a country; none of this is the same as creating customers. And customers, it should be noted, have to earn the right to be served by showing that they can plunk down the money.

“The stupid keeps getting deeper because we already know about Bezos’s treatment of people with whom he has a transactional relationship– he screws them mercilessly. Amazon workers are notoriously poorly treated so that Bezos can make more money. Bezos has made cities dance and scrape and bow for the privilege of having him gift them with another amazon hq. A school should take care of the students it serves. When has Jeff Bezos ever taken care of anybody?

“It’s stupid because of the blinding hypocrisy. I know this has been said, but it deserves endless repetition– Bezos wants to give money to the homeless, even as his corporation helped kill a tax bill in Seattle designed to help the homeless. But this isn’t just hypocrisy– it’s a blatant example of modern fauxlanthropic privatization. It’s about doing an end run around democratic-style government and insisting on commandeering the project yourself, in the same way that avoiding taxes is not just greedy, but is the Bezos way of saying that he will spend his money on his own terms, and if he’s going to spend money on something, then he will by God own it himself.

“It’s stupid because of the sheer oligarchical privatizing balls displayed. If Bezos wants some of his money to go to improving schools, there’s a mechanism in place for that; it’s called “paying your taxes.” If Bezos wants a say in how schools are operated, there’s a mechanism in place for that; it’s called “running for school board.” The country is not served by having vital institutions dependent on the largesse of the wealthy. We are not served by falling back into a system in which cities get their schools or water supplies by convincing some rich patron to take care of them.

“It’s stupid because the poor Montessori people are once again having their “brand” co-opted by somebody who doesn’t even get it. Bezos’s schools will apparently be sort of Montessori-flavored, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

“It’s stupid because it is soaked in tech-giant arrogance. Note that Bezos says nothing along the lines of, “I will bring in the top education experts to don this right.” Experts, shmexperts. Bezos will just “use the same set of principles that have driven Amazon. Most important among those will be genuine, intense customer obsession.” In other words, running a school or a giant internet-based mail order business is pretty much the same thing, so I already know everything I need to know. Even if Amazon weren’t built on a mountain of worker abuse aimed at working the customers over, this would still be an arrogant, stupid thing to say.”

Read it all.

Peter Greene’s crap detector is better than anyone else’s. Jeff Bezos should listen to him.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Early Childhood Education, Philanthropy, Stupid
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »