Archives for category: Bloomberg, Michael

Remember reading about how the billionaires have tossed nearly $3 million in campaign funds to elect their slate in the Los Angeles school board race?

Monica Garcia, their favorite incumbent, will be able to fend off the terrifying challenge from Robert Skeels, who has intimidated her with a bankroll of $17,000. By now, he may have raised $18,000. That’s the kind of funding that frightens the 1%.

Kate Anderson, their other favorite, is not well versed in education issues according to the LA Times, but it is awfully important to oust incumbent Steve Zimmer, who is generally recognized–even by the LA Times–as thoughtful, independent, and an experienced teacher. But–good grief–he must be defeated because he was endorsed by UTLA, which makes him anathema to the billionaires and the LA Times. He is independent even from the UTLA, and he was TFA, but no way will Eli Broad and Michael Bloomberg tolerate a board member who has the nerve to be thoughtful and independent.

But pity the poor billionaires. They have to raise millions for their slate because otherwise they might be overpowered by the mighty and scary UTLA. And after all, what do teachers know about education?

Read Anthony Cody’s brilliant column here. He says, “Yes, Virginia, there really is a Bilionaire boys’ club.”

In Los Angeles, Robert Skeels is running against Monica Garcia, the school board president.

Garcia and two other candidates (including Kate Anderson, who is opposing Steve Zimmer), have received $1 million from NYC mayor Bloomberg, $1.5 million from Eli Broad and friends, and $250,000 from Michelle Rhee’s group.

Here is what Skeels says, responding to another reader, as he watches the massive campaign fund grow:

“…the ratio of plutocrat to union spending in this race is in orders of magnitude. All bidders indeed. My campaign has raised $17,245.22 with just contributions from working class families and community members of $25—$50. One big check from AALA of $500. UTLA hasn’t even sent me their promised $300 check yet. But these billionaires are giving my opponent millions upon millions to offset some phantasmagorical union advantage? You’re more than a liar Mr. U., you’re a shill for power and privilege. Essentially, just a single donor to the CSR corporate slush fund has more say over the election than all the families in my district. That’s some kind of democracy.”

If you can make sense of this editorial in the Los Angeles Times, you are a whole lot smarter than me. It speaks disparagingly of the board president, then endorses her.

It chastises the school board for failing to exercise oversight of the city’s booming charter sector, but then rejects Steve Zimmer, the only school board member who had the courage to propose responsible supervision of the charter sector. The Times is flabbergasted that Zimmer called for a moratorium on new charters until the board developed a policy for determining whether they were meeting their obligations to students and the public. L.A. already has more charters than any other city in the nation, so it would hardly have been a burden to delay adding more until the board figured out how to manage its portfolio.

The Times cares not a whit that Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg, and their allies came up with $2.5 million to choose the next board. In their eyes, it’s okay for big money to overwhelm the political process. They worry not at all about the corruption of democracy.

They pay lip service to “reform.” But what do they mean by “reform.” More private entrepreneurs taking public dollars without supervision? More deregulation of the monied interests? More teachers fired because they teach students with disabilities or English language learners? More destabilization?

In 2010, the L.A. Times covered itself with shame when it concocted its own value-added methodology, rated thousands of teachers, and then published their names. The president of Math for America,, John Ewing, described this farce as “mathematical intimidation,” in an article in the journal of the American Mathematical Society.

The paper’s present indifference to the corporate purchase of the local school board multiplies its shame.

This interesting article traces the rise of big spending in Los Angeles school board races.

In 1978, a candidate was elected after spending only $56,000.

This year’s election will break all records.

The big spending began with Mayor Richard Riordan, who decided he needed to shake things up.

He and his fellow zillionaire Eli Broad won control of the board in 1999, promising to guarantee quality education for every child.

And now Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg and other super-rich are pouring over $2.5 million into the school board races.

To what end?

Is it about power? control?

Do they think they know how to produce a great education for every child? Where have they done it?

Certainly not in New York City, where Michael Bloomberg has exercised autocratic control for more than a decade.

In the latest poll, only 18% of New York City voters want the next mayor to control the schools.

Some affirmation.

Where are Eli Broad’s success stories?

If these guys don’t know how to improve schools, why do they keep meddling?

Here is a chance to make your voice heard.

Crain’s New York is running an opinion poll, asking which of Bloomberg’s policies the next mayor should get rid of. Bloomberg has promoted high-stakes testing, charter schools, school closings, co-locations of charters, and evaluation of teachers by test scores. Class sizes are at their highest in fourteen years.

Express your views here.

Robert Skeels is a pro-public school candidate in Los Angeles. He has raised $15,000. He will not get anything from Eli Broad or Michael Bloomberg.

He comments:

The LA Times asked me for a quote on Bloomberg’s $1 Million CSR donation. Here’s my response: “As a community candidate who has raised over $15,000 through myriad small contributions from local parents, community members, and classroom teachers, I find it dismaying that a single out-of-state billionaire has a greater voice in our school board election than all the working families of District 2. Where were these millions of dollars when the incumbent callously cut early childhood education, adult education, and K-12 arts last year?”

Here is a good overview of the political situation in Los Angeles by Howard Blume of the LA Times. Two billionaires have assembled a campaign chest of $2.5 million to make sure that Superintendent John Deasey has a board that supports his agenda.

Los Angeles has more charter schools than any city in America, and more are on the way.

Mayor Bloomberg’s contribution of $1 million to the pro-Deasey forces is called “a game-changer.”

Steve Zimmer, the prime target of the corporatists, says that he hopes to have a chance to sit down and talk with Mayor Bloomberg.

He thinks the mayor might change his mind.

New Yorkers would advise him not to hold his breath while waiting for that meeting.

Lest we forget, there is a larger question that deserves attention: Is it appropriate for someone who has been fortunate enough to amass $20 billion to use that money to overwhelm the democratic process?

 

This is an astonishing development.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, a multibillionaire, is giving $1 million to support three candidates in the Los Angeles school board election.

The candidates he is backing are in favor of privately managed charter schools and are generally anti-union.

The people of Los Angeles will decide in next month’s election whether the super-rich elite can buy control of the public school system and impose their pet project of privatization.

This bold effort to buy the school board is an affront to democracy.

Are the public schools of Los Angeles for sale to the highest bidder?

 

 

 

A few days ago, I published a post on the blog of the New York Review of Books about the battle over teacher evaluation by test scores.

Unlike this blog, whose readers are mostly educators, the NYRB blog goes to hundreds of thousands of highly literate non-educators. So my challenge was to briefly explain Race to the Top and the bitter struggles over how teachers should be evaluated and by whom.

Please take the time to read this post, read the comments and–if you are so moved–add your own comment to help explicate the issues.

Jersey Jazzman has been wondering whether governor Andrew Cuomo would copy the bullying tactics of New Jersey’s Governor Christie or would he adopt the collaborative style of Governor Jerry Brown.

Those of us who live in New York wonder why it took our brilliant friend in New Jersey to make his decision.