Archives for category: Billionaires

A California public high school received a grant of $10 million from Laurene Powell Jobs to redesign itself. Guess what? They have gone whole hog for “personalized learning.” Known on this Blog as Depersonalized Learning. This is where the computer mines your data all day long and you develop a close relationship with the computer.

Meanwhile the giants of Silicon Valley send their own children to a Waldorf school in Los Gatos that prohibits screens in school and discourages them at home. Wonder what they do at the school attended by Mrs. Jobs’ kiddoes.

“We are literally building the plane as we are flying it,” Principal Anthony Barela said”

They used to say that very thing when they introduced the Common Core. Remember that? Always a bad idea to build the plane in mid-air, especially when children are on board.

James C. Wilson reflects here on the intellectual arrogance of people who know nothing about education but decide they should reinvent it. The list of the arrogant would include certain foundations and philanthropists, certain legislators and other elected officials, and a long list of sheltered think tanks.

They all went to school so they think themselves qualified to redesign it. They never performed surgery, so they stay out of the operating room. But they do not hesitate to tell teachers how to teach.

He begins:

“Individuals with expertise in engineering, medicine, and business believe their achievements entitle them to think their area of knowledge extends outside their profession. The recommendations that they make in subjects outside their area of expertise are examples of misplaced intellectual arrogance. Achievement in a particular field takes numerous years of study and many years of direct professional experience in that specific field in order to develop a truly knowledgeable level of understanding. It is arrogant, even for people with great personal achievement, to honestly believe they have a significant understanding of complex issues outside of their field of education and professional experience.

“This intellectual arrogance has never been demonstrated more clearly than in recent pronouncements concerning education in America. Brilliant people in diverse fields outside of education feel perfectly comfortable making judgments and policy recommendations about education that impacts millions of students as well as educational professionals. Their audacity is appalling and their ignorance is inexcusable. Bill Gates and his wife Melinda have announced their goal to prepare 80 percent of American high school students for entrance into universities. Eli Broad, another billionaire, gives money to school districts with the clear expectation that they will implement his business-based plans…Similarly, mayors have their own ideas about how to improve student achievement, notably without any substantive research to support them. George Bush’s No Child Left Behind policy used testing to determine the success of schools, however testing in itself, has not provided solutions to educational achievement. Arne Duncan and President Obama pushed merit pay and charter schools when substantive research does not support either of these policy initiatives. Trump’s DeVos hasn’t a clue about educational research as her feeble efforts have ably demonstrated. The advocacy for these already repudiated initiatives reflects a lack of understanding of the ultimate impact on students and educational professionals.”

Thank you, dear Poet. I blush. And I laughed out loud.

“The Midnight Blog of Diane Ravitch” (apologies to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow)

Hear ye, my teachers, of techy wares
The “teaching” inventions of billionaires
Of testing and Cores
Political whores
And a blogger with passion who really cares

She said to her friends, “If the billionaires roll
By software or hard, from your towns tonight
Hang a lantern aloft from the tall flag-pole
At the public school, as a signal light —
One if by Gates and two if by Broad
And I, on the opposite side of the road,
Ready to blog and spread the alarm
Through every American village and farm
For the parents and kids to march arm in arm

Then she said “good night” and with a blogger’s adieu
Warned to “Be watchful of ‘privatize’ clue’”
Just as the wealthy were meeting with pols
And paying the think-tanks and internet trolls
For “proof” that their methods were “tried and true” —
The Common Core and the testing too —
That only THEY know what to do
A propaganda that was magnified
By billions of dollars, far and wide

Meanwhile, her friends, through blogging and tweet
Wander and watch with eagle eyes
Till they read of the program to “personalize”
The learning, by students with tech, for sure
The smell of a hardware and software cheat
By usual folks, with their usual lies
Peddling wares at the techy store

They hoisted the lanterns up the poles
At the public schools, throughout the land
To the top of the masts, hand over hand
Unbeknownst to the blogger trolls
On the internet sites (paid as planned
By billionaires, who worshipped Rand)
Up the flag-pole, so steep and tall
The highest flagpole of them all
They raised the lanterns above the trees
Where Diane Ravitch saw with ease
And moved to action from the call

A flurry of blogs and a trumpet of tweet
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark
And beneath from her fingers, in passing a spark
Struck out by a blogger both fearless and fleet
That was all! And yet through the gloom and the light
The fate of a Nation was riding that night
And the spark stuck by the blogger in flight
Kindled the Land into flame with it’s heat

You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the brutish billionaires tired and fled–
How the parents gave them piece of mind
(And not of the peaceful restful kind)
Chasing the billionaires down the lane
Then crossing the field to emerge again
Under the trees at the edge of the school
To banish forever the billionaire rule

So through the night, she persevered
And so through the night went her cry of alarm
Through every American village and farm
A cry of defiance and not of fear
A voice in the darkness a knock at the door
And a word that shall echo forevermore!
For borne on the night wind of the Past
Through all our history to the last
In the hour of darkness and peril and need
The people will waken and listen to hear
Of the ominous danger of billionaire greed
Threat to democracy that we hold dear

The Los Angeles Times editorial board published an editorial today chastising the California Teachers Association for resisting privatization of public education via charters.

I assume that this editorial was in no way influenced by Eli Broad, who subsidizes the Times’ education coverage, which is a blatant conflict of interest.

The editorial board can’t see any critics of charters other than teachers’ unions, who presumably are protecting their jobs by fighting off the agenda that Donald Trump and Betsy DeVos are promoting.

It can’t see why parents and graduates of public schools (like me) think that turning public money over to private and unaccountable boards is a terrible idea.

One would think that the LA Times might express concern about the millions of dollars pumped into the school board race by billionaires like Eli Broad, Reed Hastings, Richard Riordan, and the Waltons. How did it happen that the California Charter Schools Association become the most influential lobby in Sacramento? Isn’t the Times just a little bit curious about the deployment of big money? Have they noticed that the same money has bought the school boards in Denver, Indianapolis, and other cities? Are they aware that Reed Hastings longs for the day when democratically elected school boards are obsolete. Meanwhile, he is willing to spend whatever it takes to buy them.

One would think that a major metropolitan newspaper would worry about the power of big money to buy local school board elections. When did any of these billionaires ever have a child or grandchild in the LAUSD public schools? Why doesn’t the editorial question why they want so badly to buy the school board? What do they want?

One would think that the LA Times might have noticed the numerous scandals associated with charter schools in Los Angeles and throughout California. Is that not a reason to fight for public schools and public accountability for public money?

Does the Los Angeles Times recognize that charter schools skim the students they want and dump the ones they don’t want? Is this not a dire threat to public education, which must take the students the charters don’t want?

This editorial must be a source of joy to Betsy DeVos. The game plan in California looks like the DeVos plan in Michigan: charters, charters, charters, while defunding public schools. Did it help struggling students? No. Did it improve the academic performance of the students of Michigan? No. Michigan’s NAEP scores have plummeted since DeVos launched her charter agenda in the state.

The people of California must stand up for public education, under democratic control and with full accountability and transparency.

Shame on the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times.

Education Week reports on the plans of billionaires Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan to redesign American education. They have launched something called the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative–or CZI Initiative–to carry out their plan for “personalized learning”‘( I.e., “depersonalized learning”) to remake education into whatever they think in their limited experience is best. They have hired James Shelton–formerly of the Gates Foundation, formerly in charge of Arne Duncan’s failed SIG program (the School Improvement Grants part of Race to the Top, which federal evaluations found produced nothing of value).

What’s wrong with CZI? First, neither of its founders understands that public education is a democratic institution, in which parents and communities make decisions about their children’s education. It is not a start-up or a venture fund or an app. Did someone elect them to redesign American education without telling the public? What arrogance! Why don’t they pick a District and ask for permission to demonstrate their vision before they spend hundreds of millions to lobby for it?

Second, if they want to help children, why don’t they open a health clinic in proximity to every school that needs one? Dr. Chan is a pediatrician. Children’s health is something she knows about. Mark knows code. Children don’t need code. They need care.

Third, the article describes this as a “high-stakes venture,” but there are zero stakes for Chan and Zuckerberg. If they drop $5 billion, so what? Who will hold them accountable when they get bored and move on?

Why don’t they do what is needed, instead of foisting their half-baked ideas on the nation’s children?

And last, it is beyond obnoxious that they dare to call their tech-based approach “whole-child personalized learning,” which is an oxymoron. What part of “whole-child learning” happens on a computer?

Where are their plans to feed the hungry, heal the sick, create opportunities for play and imagination to run free?

Sad to say, this is a vainglorious and anti-democratic imposition of C and Z’s ideas on people who have nothing to say about it. The one-tenth of 1% toying with our children and our schools, for their enjoyment.

An excerpt from the Education Week article?:

“Pediatrician Priscilla Chan and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg are gearing up to invest hundreds of millions of dollars a year in a new vision of “whole-child personalized learning,” with the aim of dramatically expanding the scope and scale of efforts to provide every student with a customized education.

“The emerging strategy represents a high-stakes effort to bridge longstanding divides between competing visions for improving the nation’s schools. Through their recently established Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the billionaire couple intends to support the development of software that might help teachers better recognize and respond to each student’s academic needs-while also supporting a holistic approach to nurturing children’s social, emotional, and physical development.

“The man charged with marrying those two philosophies is former Deputy U.S. Secretary of Education James H. Shelton, now the initiative’s president of education.

“We’ve got to dispel this notion that personalized learning is just about technology,” Shelton said in an exclusive interview with Education Week. “In fact, it is about understanding students, giving them agency, and letting them do work that is engaging and exciting.”

“To advance that vision, Shelton has at his disposal a massive fortune and a wide array of levers to pull.

“Chan and Zuckerberg created CZI as a vehicle for directing 99 percent of their Facebook shares-worth an estimated $45 billion-to causes related to education and science, through a combination of charitable giving and investment.

“The initiative is structured as a limited-liability corporation, rather than a traditional foundation. That means CZI will be able to make philanthropic donations, invest in for-profit companies, lobby for favored policies and legislation, and directly support candidates for elected office ­ ­-all with minimal public-reporting requirements.

“For now, Shelton said, CZI is “one of the best-resourced startups in the world, but still a startup,” with fewer than 20 people on its education team.

“In the near future, though, he expects the initiative to give out “hundreds of millions of dollars per year” for education-related causes. Such a figure would place the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative among the highest-giving education-focused philanthropies in the country.

“Within five years, Shelton said in the June 22 interview, CZI’s work should have helped launch a “meaningful number” of schools and learning environments “where kids are performing dramatically better, and feel more engaged, and teachers feel more engaged in the work that they’re doing.”

“Chan, 32, and Zuckerberg, 33, also have embraced the idea of a long horizon for the initiative’s work, saying their support for personalized learning will extend over decades.

“From the outset, however, the couple’s attempt to engineer big changes in the U.S. education system faces significant obstacles.

“Personalized learning” was an amorphous concept even before this new attempt to integrate it with equally hard-to-define “whole child” strategies. It remains unclear how Chan, Zuckerberg, and Shelton intend to balance the organization’s support for research and development with their desire to quickly bring to scale new products and approaches, many of which have limited or no evidence to support their effectiveness.

“And CZI won’t commit to publicly disclosing all of its financial and political activity or to making the source code for its software open and accessible to the larger education community. That stance has stirred complaints about a lack of transparency.”

At the recent school board meeting of Indianapolis Public Schools, Professor Jim Scheurich of Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis got up to speak. The story he tells is similar to what happened in Denver, where Stand for Children, DFER, and other conduits for anonymous donors bought every seat on the elected school board, swamping the opposition with cash they could not match.

This was his testimony:

“My name is Dr. Jim Scheurich.

“I have been a professor of education for 25 years, first at the University of Texas at Austin and then at Texas A&M University and now at IUPUI.

“Throughout those 25 years, I have studied school success in urban districts, even winning a couple of major national awards as a scholar.

“Based on having studied some of the best urban districts in the country, I would have to say that the IPS school board and administration are among the lowest quality I have seen.

“This conclusion is particularly evident in the many negative issues that have arisen in the school closing processes and decisions.

“What I want to address about these negative issues is how we came to have this particular school board that follows an agenda that consistently disregards what the community wants, like closing legacy high schools.

“Up until 2010, an ordinary citizen of Indianapolis could win a school board seat for $3-5,000.
Starting in 2012, Stand for Children and the Mind Trust provided over $50,000 each for their candidates. Over the last 3 elections, Stand for Children and the Mind Trust have provided around $1.5 million to elect all but one school board member, Elizabeth Gore.

“This means that six of the seven board members became board members through the purchase of our local democracy. This means they owe their allegiance to the agenda of Stand for Children and the Mind Trust and NOT to the Indianapolis community.

“It seems to me that the big money election of these six board members is certainly anti-community and anti-democracy.

“But this is not the end of this scary story.

“The $1.5 million spent on the last three elections flowed through Stand for Children that used a tax designation, 501c4, to hide the source of that money and the ways they spend it.

“Why would Stand for Children and the Mind Trust try to hide the sources and spending of all of this money if they are as community oriented as they say they are?

“What they don’t want you to know is that much of this big money is coming from wealthy individuals and organizations from all around the country.

“Because then you might ask why do wealthy folks who may never set foot in Indianapolis want to buy our school board?

“You also might ask why the same wealthy folks from around the country are doing exactly the same agenda in 35 other urban centers.

“Why are wealthy folks from around the country purchasing so many urban school boards? Why are these 35 purchased school boards following the same agenda, like closing legacy high schools and supporting the opening of charter high schools?

“We in Indianapolis do not want to follow some national agenda created by wealthy individuals and organizations from outside Indianapolis.

“Instead we want to follow an agenda that is Indianapolis centered and focuses on the voices and needs of ordinary Indianapolis people of all races and incomes.

“And, thus, what we don’t need is any closing of our legacy high schools.”

Portland, Oregon, is in big trouble. Despite massive spending by the fake reform Stand on Children–err, Stand for Children–the corporate reformers lost in the school board election. Now, as local activist Deb Mayer reports, they are trying to bully a school board member into resigning.

Why the attacks on a man who won his seat and supports public schools? The board has been unable to pick a new superintendent. So the composition of the board is crucial, and the privatizers need another seat. They want Paul Anthony’s seat so they can win by bullying what they could not win at the polls.

Citizens of Portland must be informed. Stand for Children represents Bill Gates and the rest of the zbillionaire Boys Club that funds SFC. They are not working on behalf of the children and families of Portland.

Don’t be fooled.

This may be the most important post you read today.

Maurice Cunningham, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, began investigating the millions of dollars pouring into the state during the referendum on charter schools last fall. He wondered why so many billionaires from other states wanted to expand the number of charter schools in Massachusetts. He continued his investigation after the election and has lifted the curtain on groups like Families for Excellent Schools, Stand for Children, and Educators4Excellence, and Leadership for Educational Excellence (a group connected to TFA).

He began researching the intersection between philanthropy and dark money.

My descent into darkness led me to decipher the hidden funding of Families for Excellent Schools, a New York based organization that poured over $17 million in dark money into the Great Schools Massachusetts ballot committee for 2016’s Question 2 on charter schools. That brought me to the initial funding to get FES up and running in Massachusetts, which came from a Boston based Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) charity called Strategic Grant Partners. The investments from SGP are consistent with the practice of wealthy individuals using charitable entities to influence the direction of public policy, a topic I explored in Unmasking the Philanthrocapitalists Who Almost Bought Massachusetts Schools. One way for wealthy individuals to grease the path to their public policy goals is to fund organizations that undermine teachers unions, a topic I took up in Philanthrocapitalists Brandish BEANball at BTU.

In the course of this research I have created a database of all Strategic Grant Partners’ publicly available grants since its inception, from its Form 990PF tax returns. The non-profit has dispensed many grants for family support and educational purposes over that time to about seventy grantees, only five of which I would characterize as engaging in political activities: advocacy/organizing/mobilizing for three of them, adding lobbying activities for two, Stand for Children and Families for Excellent Schools. There were no grants to political activities organizations until Stand for Children in 2009, and then no other such organization received a grant until 2013 when Education Reform Now and Families for Excellent Schools received funding.

He concludes:

The Stand for Children and Families for Excellent Schools initiatives both led toward the ballot box and thus we could look at OCFP reports; but these days the reports only tell us which dark money front is laundering for which elegantly named shell. That’s the tip of the iceberg. But there is much more.

Professor Cunningham, keep up the research. Check out Donors Trust, another group that bundles dark money for school privatization. Add ALEC and its donors.

Dark Money wants to destroy our public schools and our democracy.

The people behind these activities use “civil rights” rhetoric to advance anti-democratic goals. They are thieves of democracy.

Steve Zimmer has been on the Los Angeles Unified School Board for eight years. This spring he ran for re-election. He came close to the 50% mark in the first round, but didn’t cross it. In the runoff, turnout was very low (less than 10%), and he was beaten by Nick Melvoin, who was funded by the Billionaire Boys Club.

He wrote these reflections on his defeat:


Friends,

It has been a month since the election that captured so much local and national attention and turned our worlds upside down. As some of the shock of the initial loss has lessened, the pain of what all of this means has begun to set in. Because we care so much and because we have worked so hard, it is very difficult to let go. And because we do the work of supporting the schools and school families that make dreams come true it is hard to know how to move on from doing the work. This email is my attempt to make some sense out of all of this and present some ideas for moving forward.

For each of you who worked so hard on this election and believe so genuinely in the promise of public education for every student and every family, I want to once again thank you for all that you have done and will do for our kids. On a personal level, the outpouring of love and support you have shown to Anika and me over this past month has been a blessing. Thank you. Never once have we felt alone. We went through this campaign with all of you as a family and we are absorbing the loss as a family. We are blessed.

I want you to know that I have reached out to Nick Melvoin and congratulated him on his victory in this election. He was gracious and is giving me the space to close out the many projects and initiatives that have defined this eight year effort to transform public education for all students in Los Angeles. I need us all to understand that no matter how deep the pain from this campaign may be, Nick will be the Board Member for Board District 4 and our schools, our students, their teachers and their families need him to be successful. I urge all of you, especially our teachers and parents in Board District 4, to reach out to Nick and the team he will assemble. There is too much at stake on the ground at our schools to have anything but the best working relationship with the new Board office.

But there is more I ask you to do and I ask us to do together.

We may have lost an election, but we were not wrong in the campaign we built for the soul of public education. The coalition that came together and the energy and the spirit of the campaign must move forward. Over this past month, there have been attempts to dissect our campaign in ways that endanger our efforts to keep working together on behalf of public education in Los Angeles. With so much immediately on the line, we cannot let in-fighting turn us against each other. That is exactly what our enemies want. We can’t let that happen.

So we have to understand what happened and what didn’t happen.

This was no ordinary election. We did lose and we did lose badly. And the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) and their wealthy funders won and won big. But they did not win fairly and they did not win honestly.

The CCSA effort was precise in its science and its analytics. They recruited or encouraged a group of the right candidates to keep me just under 50% in the March primary and then they waged a vicious negative campaign during the run-off. It was the most expensive school board race in the history of the nation. CCSA had a singularly unique mix of unlimited money, unbridled ambition and the complete absence of any moral or ethical code. It was a perfect electoral storm.

They prosecuted a campaign with laser focus and strict discipline. They expertly targeted precincts that were either extremely wealthy or extremely motivated against me or both. With well-paid and well-trained campaign operatives, CCSA worked these precincts incessantly. Then, CCSA unleashed the electoral equivalent of a carpet bombing campaign against me and our work together. It was a new kind of ugly and a new kind of mean.

It was also dishonest and misleading. There are real reasons that families in certain neighborhoods in our district are unhappy with my leadership. I made difficult decisions and I didn’t always get things right. I also believe that charter schools must accept every child that comes to their door and that they must be transparent and accountable for the public dollars they receive. And I have fought against many charter co-locations. So there were real reasons that some families in some communities wanted a change in District 4. But this is not what the CCSA campaign was about.

The attack ads and mailers did not talk about charter schools, charter school regulation or charter school expansion. The attack ads and the mailers did not talk about the challenging issues in Board District 4. The attack ads and the mailers did not talk about teacher tenure, teacher evaluation or the role of standardized tests. Instead, the attack ads created a fictional history that blamed me for ipadgate, the budget crisis, teacher layoffs, cuts in arts education and child abuse lawsuits. Even worse, CCSA created an ugly narrative of failure about our students, their teachers, our schools, our families and our communities.

Our campaign and the independent expenditure campaign that supported us did not have the funding, the bandwidth, or the analytics to effectively dispute the avalanche of lies nor were we able to effectively mobilize a large enough base to compete with the CCSA effort. In the end, what happened is that a majority of voters in Board District 4 believed the fictional narrative of failure created by CCSA and their wealthy financiers. They spent, they dehumanized, they lied and they won.

But winning an election in this way is not a mandate. There is no mandate for charter school expansion. There is no mandate to end teacher tenure or to devalue seniority. There is no mandate to elevate the importance of standardized tests or increase competition between schools. None of these issues was even discussed or debated. The voters believed a compelling and relentless message about my “failures”, they didn’t endorse an agenda. There are real issues. The CCSA message and the CCSA narrative was not about those issues. There is no mandate.

There has also been the assertion that there was some kind of grassroots movement that fueled this campaign. Let’s be clear. Neither Speak Up Parents nor L.A Students for Change is grassroots or a movement. They are front groups for CCSA. Each group is funded by CCSA and their wealthy sponsors. We who have been blessed to be part of real movements, cannot let CCSA and a few angry parents defile the transformational force of grassroots movements in our progressive histories.

This is why we need to build upon the inspirational spirit of this campaign. We must pivot from this loss to the immediate work that we need to do to build coalition and further define a progressive public schools movement in Los Angeles. Done right, our work moving forward at the ballot box, in schools and in communities can transform this loss into the next best chance to build an agenda for collaborative progress for our public schools in Los Angeles and beyond.

The first step is at the polling place.

What happened to us in this election cannot be allowed to happen again and the only way to ensure that is to be present and engaged in critical upcoming elections.
Two weeks ago, Jimmy Gomez won an important victory and will be our next Member of Congress from the 34th District. This means his Assembly Seat for the 51st District will be open. The 51st Assembly District covers parts of East Los Angeles, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Echo Park and Silver Lake. This is one of the most progressive districts in the State. It is essential that an educator or a pro-public education candidate be elected as the next Member of the Assembly from the 51st District. Last November, CCSA won huge victories in Senate and Assembly races throughout the State and gained dangerous influence in both houses of the legislature. These races were almost as ugly as my School Board race. We can’t let that happen in the 51st Assembly district. This will be an important statement race and if we are successful it could shift the pro-charter momentum in Sacramento. We need to bring the soul and the energy of our campaign together in coalition with good progressive democrats who are on the ground in the 51st District. That race starts now. We must be involved and engaged.

Next, we are exactly one year away from the State-Wide Primary Election. The stakes quite literally could not be higher. The Governor’s Race and the race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction will, in real and meaningful ways, determine the future of public education in California. In the coming months, I will write to you about the strong candidates who are running for these offices. But what is important for us to understand is that CCSA will be trying to take these important seats as well. And they will try to do it in the exact same way as they did this to us in this School Board race.

We must fight this state level fight through grassroots organizing, coalition building and through solidarity with our brothers and sisters in labor and progressive community organizations. We need to get even more active in our local democratic clubs. We need to engage club by club throughout Los Angeles County and we need to make sure that no one who calls claims to be a Democrat is allowed to get a pass for outsourcing jobs and privatizing public education. The values that CCSA promotes may be cloaked in the civil rights of children and their parents, but they are in fact Donald Trump and Betsy Devos’s value. And CCSA’s deregulatory agenda for public education must be rejected by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party and local democratic clubs just as we Democrats reject Environmental and Labor deregulation. The fight against privatization must also be a fight for equity and a fight for justice. And so our campaign in 2018 for the Governor and Superintendent must be a campaign that speaks to voters about how teachers, families and community leaders can work together to change education outcomes for children.

The second step is within our own unions.

There has never been a more important moment for solidarity. I had labor support, but that did not translate into labor priority and we lost control of the school board. The consequences will be even graver if Antonio Villaraigosa and Marshall Tuck are able to divide the labor movement in 2018. Given Villaraigosa’s positive labor record in some areas this is going to take strategy, focus and discipline. But it is also possible. We must build an understanding about why labor unions need to prioritize education issues and recognize how interconnected the collaborative transformation of our public is with the growth of the labor movement.

The 2018 Statewide races give our coalition another important chance to present a positive, “all kids and all dreams” public education vision for California. Over the next few weeks, I will work to connect our coalition with progressive pro-public education forces from across the state. We lost an important round in the fight for public education last month, but we have to learn from this loss and deliver Los Angeles County in a huge way for progressive, pro-public education candidates for Governor and State Superintendent.

And of course, we must resist the Donald Trump’s racist, xenophobic and nationalist Presidency on every level. I urge you to fight Betsy DeVos’ efforts to privatize public education and strip away the nation’s commitment to equity, access and protections for all students; particularly our immigrant students and our LGBT students. We must fight her on social media, in the legislature and on the streets. As teachers, community activists and as parents we have an important voice in the resistance. Let’s connect all the dots and build bridges of common cause to win the State House and take back Congress in 2018.

Friends, I came to Los Angeles to teach 25 years ago. I started my student teaching at Jefferson the day it re-opened after the uprising in South Los Angeles. Throughout my career I have had the chance to stand with my students and their families through some of the most important fights in California political history. More important, I have grasped hands with parents and guardians to uplift all American dreams through public education in Los Angeles. I have been welcomed as a brother and as comrade in communities that were not my own. I am forever grateful to the students who taught me that teaching is listening and that counseling is listening even more. And that leadership is listening the most. I am forever grateful to the teachers, the counselors and the school leaders who worked with me to build programs where we never gave up on a single student.

I have two weeks left as your Board President. I intend to work with all my heart and all my soul and all my might until June 30th.

But on July 1st, the dreams of all children in Los Angeles will be just as important as they are today. And so I ask you to keep on keeping on. I ask you to never stop believing and to never give up on a single child. We need to stay focused on our kids and we need to keep doing the work. The dreams of our children and the purpose of our LAUSD family are too important for us to stop even for a moment. The soul of public education will hang even more in the balance when we wake up on July 1st. Not at the School Board, not in the State House, not in the White House but rather right here at the school house. Because the dreams of families, our dreams, are still alive and well at our school house door.

We know that dreams can come true through public education. And we know that dreams have no boarders and that dreams cannot be put behind bars. We know that dreams are more powerful than hate. We know that dreams are more powerful than pain, disappointment or loss. And we certainly know that they are more important than any one election. These dreams, our dreams will guide us towards a better tomorrow and towards this beloved community.

It has been a blessing and it has been an honor to elevate the dreams of our children together with all of you. I believe in each of you and all of you. And I have never been prouder of this family.

Anika and I thank you.

Steve

Add us to your address book

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

All over the country, PBS stations are showing anti-public school propaganda in a three-hour series called “School Inc.” This series was paid for by libertarian foundations who want for-profit schools, vouchers, charters, and for-profit teachers, competing for students. The lead funder is the Rose-Mary and Jack Anderson Foundation, which supports radical libertarian causes and acts as a funnel for Donors Trust, which bundles money from the Koch brothers and DeVos family for their favorite causes.

PBS emendation accepting money for the series, which has no opposing views and which was never fact-checked, because it likes to show divergent views.

Really?

Would PBS accept funding to run a three-hour program that was opposed to abortion rights? That argued that homosexuality was a sin? That attempted to prove that climate change was a hoax? That insisted that the Sandy Hook massacre of children and staff never happened? That defended Confederate flags and monuments in public space?

The Network for Public Education encourages you to write an email or call your PBS station. Apparently, some local stations watched the series and decided not to show it. Most, however, are running it without any rebuttal.

Here is my rebuttal, which was seen only in New York City.

Here is my written commentary.

The irony is that these foundations do not believe in public education or public television.