Archives for category: Billionaires
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Exposed: Wall Street Money Pays Democratic Clique to Help GOP Control State Senate

By dianeravitch
June 10, 2017 //
25

New York is a blue state but has a divided legislature. Democrats control the Assembly, and Republicans control the State Senate. Republicans are not the majority of the State Senate. They are in power because of a small group of renegade Democrats who vote with the Republicans. They are called the Independent Democratic Caucus, and they hold the balance of power. Governor Andrew Cuomo likes the divided legislature, as it enhances his power.

The Alliance for Quality Education (AQE) investigated the IDC and discovered the source of their ample funding: Hedge fund managers and equity investors who favor charter schools and privatization.

Its report, called “Pay to Play: Charter Schools and the IDC,” lays out the political contributions that fuel the IDC campaigns:

“The IDC received $676,850 from charter school political donors.

“Over the past six years, the Independent Democratic Conference, a group of breakaway Democrats who support Republican control of the New York State Senate, have received $676,850 from charter school political donors. These political donors, including hedge fund managers and their political action committees, have been rewarded by the IDC as seen in the 2017 state budget where privately-
run charter schools got much larger funding increases per pupil than public schools. The IDC-Republican advocacy for privately-run charter schools at the expense of public schools runs counter to the IDC’s public pronouncements that they are championing public school funding and the Campaign for Fiscal Equity. The IDC is empowering pro-privatization, pro-Trump Republicans to run the State Senate even though it hurts the more than one million public school students they represent.

“The table below is lists the charter school-af liated individual and political action donations made to IDC members and to committees speci cally bene ting the IDC.

“Senators Hamilton and Peralta are not included in the list of IDC members shown below. Senator Jesse Hamilton joined the IDC on November 7, 2016. Senator Jose Peralta joined in January 2017. The two senators however, have a long history of receiving donations from the charter industry. Over the years, the donations they received come to a total of $ 11,500 for and $26,500 for Peralta. This money is in addition to the total shown in this report.”

Open the link to see the list of donors.

Why does this connection matter?

A Republican Senate can be relied on to prevent tax increases on the wealthy. This matters to them even more than charter schools. Bottom line: the 1% prefer charters instead of tax increases to pay for smaller classes, early childhood education, and the services that would help children and public schools.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, New York

Steve Zimmer’s Chief of Staff Speaks Out About the Complex Issues in LAUSD

By dianeravitch
June 9, 2017 //
33

Claudia Vizcarra’s statement was posted as a comment. Steve Zimmer fought against the Billionaires Boy Club twice, and lost the second time. I strongly supported Steve. It was only after the election that I wrote that I wished he had fought harder against charters and drawn the lines more sharply against privatization. To Steve’s credit, he is a thoughtful, reasonable, open-minded person. If he had been able to match Melvoin dollar for dollar, he would have whipped him. But this is the reality we face: none of us who understand the value and importance of public education can match the BBC dollars. We are many, they are few. That’s the only way to save our schools: people power. Votes.

She writes:

“I feel the need to weigh in at this time. I worked for Steve Zimmer for 7 years, the last 4 I was his Chief of Staff. I appreciate Diane speaking to the complexity of the issues in this election. I want to add a couple of pieces that need to be taken into consideration, in my opinion.

“The first one is that Steve did not come out strongly enough against charter schools. I was there when Steve called for a moratorium for new charters petitions prior to his previous election – which was determined not to be legal and generated a massive campaign against him. Despite this, he prevailed in the election. Steve objected time and again against charters for not serving special education students or a diverse enough populations. Charters have long responded to these issues by saying, we’re trying. Some do and some don’t. Steve also called out the massive expansion of charters that Broad and his billionaire friends were (are) planning.

“And Steve made a strong case for changing the narrative to one that focused on increasing enrollment. He authored resolution after resolution asking Superintendent’s Deasy, Cortines and now King to make strategic investments in the programs that were drawing parents back into our schools.

“And it’s important to look at the issue in its complexity. We can’t forget that like it or not, charter schools parents are also constituents and cannot be flat out ignored. And let’s remember that Districts have to deal with the reality that even when they reject a charter petition at the onset, charters have the right to appeal both at the County level and at the State level again. So, a charter can be denied by the local Board and still have a right to be co-located in District schools that have available classrooms. Consider the complexity of this.

“Some people have argued that Steve lost his election because he supported the resolution that called for supporting SB 808 – which asks that an appeal at the county level can only be denied on the basis of the local Board committing a procedural violation. Whether this is the right fix or not, is an open question. Consider again, the complexity of this.

“Others have argued that the more appropriate arena for local Boards to engage in is the difficult conversation of defining what a ‘sound educational plan’. The LAUSD Board of Education began this conversation, and would have continued it if Steve had been re-elected. But consider how complex this conversation, is, if you will.

“My point is not to be a Zimmer apologist. We all know that like all of us, Steve is human and made mistakes. Our democracy does not require perfection from our leaders. But we are learning, all too painfully, that it requires our leaders to consider matters carefully. And it requires that more people join the conversation and have thoughtful conversations.

“In my opinion, Steve made a valiant effort to make a case for public education. He authored and supported countless resolutions detailing the many elements that make our District schools the best choice in some communities, and supported the District in making the improvements needed to make sure they are the best choice in the communities where parents don’t find them to be so. Anyone who cares to look, will find that his policy legacy is robust, and that we don’t need to start from square one to build progressive policy. There is a lot there to build on for those who want to do this.

“I am not sure if calling charters parasites is the best way to go. But I am sure that in California we have to start by working to repeal Proposition 39. I don’t believe there is a voter that is not shocked to learn that they voted to support the mayhem this has created. Voters across the state need to learn what this looks like on the ground, and we need to consider a better alternative.

“In Los Angeles, I also feel that there has been insufficient attention to making charters accountable. The LA School Report provides a daily dosage of LAUSD’s failings. But I don’t know which media outlet has ever sent a reporter to charter board meetings. No one has studied how many of those Boards have A-G resolutions, or resolutions that promote restorative justice. I am not sure if the civil rights groups in Los Angeles have paid the same attention to the rights of the over 100,000 students in charter schools.”

If charter schools are public schools, entitled to public dollars and public school classrooms, they require the same attention from those committed to social justice.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Los Angeles, Privatization

Karen Wolfe: Why the Billionaire Boys Club Won the Los Angeles Election

By dianeravitch
June 8, 2017 //
16

Karen Wolfe is a parent activist and blogger in Los Angeles. She interviewed several of the leading figures in the recent school board elections and shares her thoughts about why the board president Steve Zimmer lost and his billionaire-backed challenger Nick Melvoin won. [Sorry for original error; Freudian slip.]

Back in the distant past, a person could raise $30-50,000 and run for school board. This race cost millions of dollars. The billionaires spent four times as much money as the supporters of Zimmer. Zimmer was backed by UTLA (United Teachers of Los Angeles), Melvoin was backed by billionaires like Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg, Alice Walton, Reed Hastings, and others with no connection to the schools other than their desire to put one of their own in control. It was the most expensive school board race in history (as the referendum last fall about the expansion of charter schools was the most expensive ballot question about schools in history–the billionaires hand over a million or two without thinking twice, when charters are involved.)

Melvoin had another advantage besides copious cash for TV and print advertising. He was able to spend full-time campaigning every day for the last 18 months, while Zimmer had a day job.

Melvoin and his campaign also lied shamelessly. They blamed Zimmer for John Deasy’s $1 billion iPad scandal. Deasy is now working for Eli Broad. Now, that’s chutzpah. Or a bald-faced lie.

Karen Wolfe is not as impressed by the power of the money and lies as I am. I think that Melvoin is a puppet of Broad, and his campaign excelled at mud-slinging and succeeded in depressing the vote.

My take: Steve Zimmer, an honorable and decent man, failed to present a sharp alternative to Melvoin. He was always on the defensive. He supported charter schools, but thought they should be held accountable. He did not make a compelling case for the importance of public education and the dangers of privatization. He had one foot in each camp. That’s not good enough. I wish he had come out against charter schools for draining hundreds of millions from the district and luring away the easiest to educate students. I wish he had called them parasites.

Now the new board president is likely to be run by Ref Rodriguez, who runs a charter chain that was recently under investigation. He has contracts with the board. He shouldn’t even be on the board. Doesn’t California have conflict of interest laws? Guess not.

What is the future of public education in Los Angeles? Ask Eli Broad. He considers privately managed and unaccountable charter schools to be “public schools.” There will be many more of them in the near future. That’s why the billionaires invested.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Los Angeles, Privatization

Chan-Zuckerberg Put Their Money on Depersonalized Learning

By dianeravitch
June 7, 2017 //
50

Boy wonder Billionaire Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Dr. Priscilla Chan are placing their bets on technology to teach children better than humans.

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2017/6/6/chan-zuckerbergs-personalized-learning-grants

What is ironic about this is that Dr. Chan has often told interviewers that two teachers “changed her life.”

Do you think anyone will ever remember with gratitude the nameless, faceless monitor that changed their life?

Please join me in my personal crusade to refer to machine instruction as Depersonalized Learning. The tech billionaires not only want our money, they want to steal the integrity of language.

NO! Resist!

Categories Billionaires, Teaching, Technology

NY Times: The Tech Billionaires Who Are Remaking America’s Schools

By dianeravitch
June 6, 2017 //
37

This is an important article about the Silicon Valley billionaires who want to remake America’s schools, although none has any deep knowledge of children or cognition or the multiple social issues that affect children and families. Being tech entrepreneurs, most of them think there is a technological fix for every problem.

The article focuses on several billionaires and what they aim to achieve.

The writer, Natasha Singer, is careful to add red flags where necessary and seek out evaluations. She also is alert to the possibility that the tech entrepreneurs are building their portfolios and enriching themselves. And she points out that much of what they are doing challenges democracy itself in the absence of public debate and understanding.

She writes:

“In the space of just a few years, technology giants have begun remaking the very nature of schooling on a vast scale, using some of the same techniques that have made their companies linchpins of the American economy. Through their philanthropy, they are influencing the subjects that schools teach, the classroom tools that teachers choose and fundamental approaches to learning….

“The involvement by some of the wealthiest and most influential titans of the 21st century amounts to a singular experiment in education, with millions of students serving as de facto beta testers for their ideas. Some tech leaders believe that applying an engineering mind-set can improve just about any system, and that their business acumen qualifies them to rethink American education…

“Tech companies and their founders have been rolling out programs in America’s public schools with relatively few checks and balances, The New York Times found in interviews with more than 100 company executives, government officials, school administrators, researchers, teachers, parents and students.

“They have the power to change policy, but no corresponding check on that power,” said Megan Tompkins-Stange, an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. “It does subvert the democratic process.”

Furthermore, there is only limited research into whether the tech giants’ programs have actually improved students’ educational results….

“Mr. Hastings of Netflix and other tech executives rejected the idea that they wielded significant influence in education. The mere fact that classroom internet access has improved, Mr. Hastings said, has had a much greater impact in schools than anything tech philanthropists have done.”

Hastings’ Dreambox software depends on constant data-mining:

“DreamBox Learning tracks a student’s every click, correct answer, hesitation and error — collecting about 50,000 data points per student per hour — and uses those details to adjust the math lessons it shows. And it uses data to help teachers pinpoint which math concepts students may be struggling with.”

This is the same Reed Hastings who just spent $5 million helping charter entrepreneurs gain control of the Los Angeles school board.

“Another difference: Some tech moguls are taking a hands-on role in nearly every step of the education supply chain by financing campaigns to alter policy, building learning apps to advance their aims and subsidizing teacher training. This end-to-end influence represents an “almost monopolistic approach to education reform,” said Larry Cuban, an emeritus professor of education at Stanford University. “That is starkly different to earlier generations of philanthropists.”

“These efforts coincide with a larger Silicon Valley push to sell computers and software to American schools, a lucrative market projected to reach $21 billion by 2020. Already, more than half of the primary- and secondary-school students in the United States use Google services like Gmail in school.”

Singer goes through each of the entrepreneurs’ programs. The only one that impressed me was the program in San Francisco that created a Pricipals’ Innovation Fund, “which awards annual unrestricted grants of $100,000 to the principal at each of the district’s 21 middle and K-8 schools.” The key word here is unrestricted.

Mark Zuckerberg’s dream is to sell his digitized approach to enable children to learn via computer and use teachers as moderators. He calls this “personalized learning,” since the computer algorithm adjusts for each student. Singer’s subtitle for Zuckerberg’s dream is: “Student, Teach Thyself.”

““Our hope over the next decade is to help upgrade a majority of these schools to personalized learning and then start working globally as well,” Mr. Zuckerberg told the audience. “Giving a billion students a personalized education is a great thing to do.”

Please, Natasha Singer, do a follow-up that explains that learning from a machine is depersonalized learning.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Data and Data Mining, Democracy, Education Reform, For-Profit, Online Learning, Privacy and Privacy Rights, Technology

Harold Meyerson: Why Do Billionaires Care So Much About Charter Schools?

By dianeravitch
June 4, 2017 //
26

Harold Meyerson, editor of The American Prospect, raised a question that I have heard dozens of times: Why do billionaires care so much about charter schools? Why have so many of the 1% decided that charter schools will provide a better education than public schools?

Are we to believe that the Walton Family, Eli Broad, Michael Dell, Doris Fischer, Reed Hastings, and many lesser-known billionaires are consumed by a passion for equity?

Inevitably, one must also wonder why billionaires are indifferent to evidence that charter schools are typically no better, and often much worse, than public schools?

Why are they so intent on weakening America’s public schools, a bedrock of our democracy?

Meyerson writes:

“Living in separate eras when the middle class was—and is—embattled and the gap between rich and poor was—and is—immense, billionaires have largely shunned the fights that might truly narrow that gap: raising the minimum wage, making public colleges and universities free, funding sufficient public investment to create genuine full employment, reviving collective bargaining, and raising progressive taxes to pay for all of that.”

To put it bluntly, the great crusade for charters is a diversion from the true economic issues of our day.

We can only dream about a government willing to tax the billionaires, intent on raising the minimum wage, and determined to provide economic security for all. That would address the sources of inequality.

But Billionaire would rather talk about charter schools.

Categories Billionaires, Education Reform

How Millionaires Make Money by Paying into Voucher Fund

By dianeravitch
May 31, 2017 //
7

The currently popular means of establishing vouchers in the states where the state constitution forbids them is called an “education savings account.” The way it works is otherwise known as money laundering. Suppose Daddy Warbucks owes the state $200,000 in taxes. He gives the money to an independent organization that gives out money for private and religious schools. He gets a state tax credit and may actually make money on the deal if he also gets a federal tax credit.

Very clever. Daddy Warbucks makes a generous gift of money that should have gone to the state treasury to pay for public services. The independent organization collects millions of dollars to hand out as vouchers.

This particular game was created in Florida, where the state courts ruled vouchers unconstitutional, and the voters rejected an effort by Jeb Bush to alter the state constitution.

Now it is happening in Missouri, where the richest man in the state is Rex Sinquefield.

Rex has long been a hater of public schools. He stands to achieve his dream, undermining the public schools, and getting a hefty tax deduction too.

Categories Billionaires, Florida, Missouri, Privatization, Vouchers

Tom Ultican’s Sharp Critique of What Went Wrong and How to Make Things Right

By dianeravitch
May 28, 2017 //
19

Tom Ultican became a teacher of math and physics in San Diego after a career in Silicon Valley. He is retiring. He loves teaching.

He describes with precision the people who imposed bad ideas on the schools and messed them up. Maybe they meant well but their lack of knowledge or experience in the classroom led to naive and foolish and failed interventions, like Common Core and “turnaround,” with mad firings.

He writes:

“Standards based education is bad education theory. In the 1960’s Benjamin Bloom proposed mastery education in which instruction would be individualized and students would master certain skills before they moved ahead. By the 1970’s this idea had been married with B.F. Skinner’s behaviorist philosophy and teachers were given lists of discrete items for their students to master. The “reform” became derisively known as “seats and sheets.””

Tom says he is leaving the classroom. I hope there is a way to keep his kbowledge, experience, and wisdom engaged in educating the next generation.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Competency Based Education, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, NCLB, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Privatization, San Diego, Technology, Turnaround Schools

Mercedes Schneider on 50CAN

By dianeravitch
May 27, 2017 //
10

Mercedes Schneider wrote a post about 50CAN, which exists to spread the gospel of charter schools, state-run “Achievement school districts,” and high-stakes grading systems (unclear whether the high-stakes are only for public schools, as most states haven’t done much to identify or close failing charter schools).

Their agenda is a match with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Betsy DeVos (who supports accountability for public schools only).

As Schneider points out, there is a lot of chatter on the website about “citizen advocates,” but it is clear from the membership on the board that 50CAN is run by the same wealthy magnates that finance other corporate reform, privatizing organizations. On the board, for example, is the Connecticut billionaire Jonathan Sackler, whose family became among the richest in America producing the highly addictive opioids OxyContin.

When you see the size of the staff, you realize that this is a very well funded organization with a multi-million dollar budget.

You will notice frequency of the phrase, “evidence-based,” but don’t be fooled. In almost every state, public schools outperform charter schools. And the only full-fledged Achievement School District is in Tennessee. It has been a dismal failure.

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

Laura Chapman on 50CAN

By dianeravitch
May 27, 2017 //
15

50CAN is a corporate reform organization that originated in Connecticut as ConnCAN. It was led by the billionaire Jonathan Sackler. Sackler owns Purdue Pharmaceuticals, which created the drug OxyContin, which is a highly addictive painkiller. The drug financing the expansion of charter schools made the Sackler family very wealthy (at last count, a net worth of $14 billion), but it is also implicated in the nation’s opioid crisis.

ConnCAN went national as 50CAN. (I learned from reading Elizabeth Young Bruelh’s book “Childism” that CAN is an acronym in the psychiatric literature that stands for “child abuse and neglect.”

Laura Chapman did some research and this is what she learned:

“According to Media Matters.org, 50CAN stands for the 50 State Campaign for Achievement Now. 50CAN is a network of state-level organizations pushing for pro-voucher and free-market education policies across the country. It has affiliates in Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, and “fellowships “in California, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, and Wisconsin.

“The 2016 policy goals focused on passing state legislation in affiliate states to spur the rapid expansion of charter schools and to reduce state oversight of these schools.

“50CAN “partners” with many conservative and rightwing organizations that want to control school policy. Among these partners are the Commonwealth Foundation (a member of the State Policy Network) which, according to Politico includes these “associate members”: ALEC, David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity Foundation, FreedomWorks, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, the Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation. Add the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (see Wikipedia and board of directors); and Policy Innovators in Education Network (PIE) active in 34 states promoting market-based education.

“Each state in 50CAN has strategic partners and interlocking directorates among members. This inbreeding is planned and extensive. It is masked by the ambiguous language of “strategic partnerships” for policies and for advocacy, a relationship of “affiliate status,” and for “campaigns” (lobbying initiatives) with right wing organizations and projects. 50CAN state affiliates know how to find and to co-opt groups that should be defending public education. Go to jonathanpelto,com for a chilling report from early this year about the activities of ConnCAN.

“Here is another example. PIE (Policy Innovators in Education Network) is a sprawling network of deep-pocket and dark money power-brokers promoting market-based education in 34 states and Washington, DC. Members can be found here: http://pie-network.org/pie-network-members/

“Who finances PIE? Foundations set up by billionaires who have no respect for public education and othe institutions with democratic governance. PIE is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, Joyce Foundation, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, New Venture Fund, and McKnight Foundation.

“In March, 50CAN and Michelle Rhee”s StudentsFirst announced that they would merge and begin operating under the 50CAN name nationally, although state chapters of StudentsFirst will, for the most part, retain their “brands.”

“All of that is a a fraction of what’s going on, and with tax breaks for the “non-profits” who are working together for a “collective impact.”

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/04/27/here-are-corporations-and-right-wing-funders-backing-education-reform-movement/210054#50can

My addendum: the PIE Network was launched by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, ConnCAN, Connecticut, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »