Archives for category: Charter Schools
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

NYC: No Charter Waiting Lists! Charters Hire Firm to Market Their Brands

By dianeravitch
November 4, 2018 //
13

Susan Edelman of the New York Post reports that the NYC DOE is under investigation by federal and state officials for giving personal information about students to a marketing firm hired by charter schools.

https://nypost.com/2018/11/04/department-of-education-probed-for-pitching-charters-to-public-school-kids/

Wait! What about the long waiting lists?!

She writes:

“The city Department of Education reduces its enrollment by giving student names and addresses to a private vendor that produces mass mailings to help charter schools woo families.

“The longtime marketing practice has now come under investigation by state and federal officials after a Manhattan mom complained it violates student privacy rights.

“Each year my family receives a large number of pamphlets and flyers from charter schools, promoting and marketing their schools and urging me to apply, ” Johanna Garcia wrote to state and US officials.

“While Garcia has three kids in public schools, flyers have targeted her daughter who qualified for a gifted and talented program, she wrote, but not two other children with special needs.

“The DOE says it gives only student names, grade levels and addresses to Vanguard Direct, a bulk-mailing company, and forbids the company to share the data with anyone else.

“Charter schools — which are privately run but get taxpayer funds based on enrollment — hire Vanguard to send out hundreds of thousands of marketing materials aimed at recruiting kids.

“Major customers include charter chains Success Academy, Uncommon, KIPP, and Achievement First, said DOE spokesman Douglas Cohen. The DOE receives no payment from Vanguard, he said.

“In response to Garcia’s complaint, the New York state and US education departments said they are probing whether the marketing deal violates FERPA — a federal law which requires schools to get parent permission before releasing student information, except in limited cases.

“But Leonie Haimson, co-chair of the national Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, said the reasoning makes no sense: “School districts lose funding and space when students enroll in charters. Why would the DOE use its own employees for that purpose?”

“Garcia agreed. “Vanguard makes money. Charter schools make money. All on the backs of regular public-school students.”

“The practice began more than a decade ago under ex-Mayor Mike Bloomberg, when Success Academy CEO Eva Moskowitz said she needed the DOE data to market her charter schools. It has continued despite Mayor de Blasio’s less-friendly relationship with charters.

“Chancellor Richard Carranza told a town hall meeting in Harlem last week that DOE schools should better market themselves to stem the rise of charter schools, Patch.com reported.

“But charter schools say they rely on the mailings to fill seats.”

Categories Accountability, Bloomberg, Michael, Charter Schools, Data, Education Industry, Education Reform, New York City, Privacy and Privacy Rights, Privatization

Arizona: #RedforEd Is So Popular that Even Its Opponents are Hitching Their Wagon to It

By dianeravitch
November 4, 2018 //
8

This story in the New York Times by veteran education writer Dana Goldstein describes the peculiar situation in Arizona, where everyone claims to support public education even if they don’t.

Even Governor Doug Ducey, the nemesis of public schools, is boasting about his thin education record.


PHOENIX — Campaign signs are clustered on street corners and highway ramps across this low-slung, sun-baked city, proclaiming “#YesforEd” and “Protect Public Education.” In TV commercials, the Republican governor promises to “put more money in the classroom, not bureaucracy.” “Our schools are falling apart,” his Democratic challenger counters.

Six months after tens of thousands of red-clad teachers swarmed the Arizona Capitol in a weeklong walkout, demanding higher pay and more funding for schools, education is a dominant issue in the state’s elections next month.

The teachers’ protest movement, which calls itself #RedforEd, has transformed the political battleground. The movement remains so popular in Arizona that candidates and causes across the ideological spectrum are competing to identify with it — including conservatives who, in years past, might have been more likely to criticize teachers or unions than associate with activist educators.

That has left some Democrats — teachers’ traditional allies — scrambling to differentiate themselves.

It is a pattern that has played out in several states where teachers have walked off the job this year, including Oklahoma, West Virginia and Kentucky. The teachers’ movement has energized Democrats in red states, with record numbers of educators running for office. But it may have had an even greater impact on Republican politics. In primaries, it has picked off Republican legislators who opposed funding for teachers and schools. And it has convinced conservative leaders that voters, particularly suburban parents, are looking for full-throated support, and open pocketbooks, for public education.

In Arizona, which has some of the lowest school funding in the nation, nowhere are these issues more prominent than in the governor’s race. Both candidates have claimed the mantle of education champion.

“I’m the one who’s been on the side of the teacher,” Gov. Doug Ducey, the Republican incumbent, said in an interview at his campaign headquarters last week.

Before his state’s teachers threatened to walk out, Mr. Ducey had offered them a 1 percent raise. But under pressure from the #RedforEd movement, he eventually proposed and signed a bill promising a 20 percent pay hike by 2020.

Teachers have already seen some of that money in their paychecks. And even before the walkout, Mr. Ducey had signed several other bills that provided new money for schools. Still, overall education funding, adjusted for inflation, remains significantly below the pre-recession levels of a decade ago. Parents and teachers say they can see the difference through aging textbooks, staff shortages and fewer electives and field trips.

The governor, the former chief executive of the ice cream franchise Cold Stone Creamery, argues that a growing economy will ensure that schools funding and teacher pay will continue to rise. He also says that if re-elected, he will seek to cut taxes — a pledge that leaves some educators skeptical they will see all the funding they have been promised.

Mr. Ducey’s challenger, David Garcia, a professor of education at Arizona State University, has a radically different vision.

Mr. Garcia strongly supported the walkout and a ballot initiative effort that grew out of it, called InvestinEd, which would have funded schools by raising income taxes on individuals and households earning more than $250,000. The State Supreme Court struck InvestinEd from the ballot in August, citing technical questions about the proposal’s wording.

Mr. Garcia says that if he is elected, he will push to close corporate tax loopholes, end tax credits for private school tuition and revisit the effort to raise taxes on the wealthy, perhaps through a new ballot initiative.

Those are fighting words in a state where libertarianism runs deep, and where a decades-long tradition of cutting taxes has maintained some of the lowest corporate and personal income taxes in the nation. (Arizona relies in part on sales taxes for funding schools.)

But Mr. Garcia is betting that concern about public education among women, younger voters and Latinos — including many who are newly registered, or do not typically turn out for midterm elections — can carry him. He says those voters are not being reached by pollsters, who have him trailing Mr. Ducey….

Mr. Garcia is an unusual candidate in Arizona. He is an Army veteran with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and an expert on the huge troves of data that have transformed education research over the past two decades.

He used some of that data to create the state’s first school rating and accountability systems when he worked for the state Education Department in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In that role, he sometimes butted heads with teachers’ union leaders, who at the time were skeptical of using student data to judge schools, he said.

Nevertheless, the state’s largest teachers’ union, the Arizona Education Association, has enthusiastically endorsed him this year.

Mr. Garcia sometimes sounds more like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont than the centrist Democrats more typical in Arizona, like Kyrsten Sinema, the Senate candidate, who has not endorsed him.

NPE Action has endorsed Garcia over Ducey, because Ducey is a pro-voucher libertarian who has done his best to 7ndermine public education. We have qualms about his infatuation with data and his admiration for charter schools, but support him because of his opposition to vouchers, his determination to fund public schools, and his commitment to clean up Arizona’s charter swamp of self-dealing and corruption.

Categories Accountability, Arizona, Charter Schools, Education Reform, Teachers

ALERT! Do Not Vote for Candidates Funded by Billionaires in This Local School Board Race!

By dianeravitch
November 4, 2018 //
8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization, Teach for America, Virginia

School Board Member: Why Are Billionaires Pouring So Much Money into Marshall Tuck and Charter Schools?

By dianeravitch
November 4, 2018 //
11

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

He wrote:

Here’s my question:

Why is there so much $ going to Charter Schools?

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

What is in it for these donors?

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

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

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

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

Here is my response to the questions.

Dear Anonymous:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The billionaires and millionaires have various motives.

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

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

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

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

The fraud can continue a while longer.

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

Even the billionaires will have to face their own failure.

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

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

The Times They Are a’Changing (Ohio Republicans Rediscover Public Schools)

By dianeravitch
November 4, 2018 //
11

Have you noticed that the candidates soppnsored by the charter industry say they support public schools and never say they want more charters.

Voucher supporters never say the V word. Instead they call vouchers “scholarshipsl or “tuition tax credits” or something else.

Suddenly, the biggest enemies of public schools proclaim their love for the very schools they have defunded and called “government schools” (ALEC’s term) now declare that they LOVE LOVE LOVE public schools. It must be election time.

Don’t be fooled!

Our reader Chiara writes about Ohio, where the mood has changed. Ohio Republicans authorized charters and vouchers and sent $1 billion to a failing virtual charter school, which went bankrupt. The same people who stole hundreds of millions from public schools are now asking you to trust them.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

She writes:

“It’s like the politicians are rusty in Ohio- out of practice. They’re so used to lock step public school bashing as a campaign tactic that they’re having trouble even pretending to support public schools.

“Mike DeWine doesn’t know what to say. He’s torn between his donors, his ideological opposition to public schools and his urgent need to get elected. You can see the struggle on his face as he casts about for something, anything to say to the 85% of families in this state who attend public schools. They haven’t spoken to us in years, other than to suggest we all enroll in the charters and private schools they prefer.

“I watch the debates and I expect one of them to revert to the last 15 years of training and start yelling “government schools!”, involuntarily. Public school bashing was such a surefire political winner for so many years they all look like they’re lost without it.

“No longer can Ohio politicians dump every problem they haven’t addressed on public schools and dodge accountability. The 15 year free ride is over.”

Categories Accountability, ALEC, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Ohio, Privatization, Vouchers

John Thompson: Insights on the Origins of “A Nation at Risk”: A Conversation with James Harvey and John Merrow

By dianeravitch
November 3, 2018 //
45

John Thompson, retired teacher and historian in Oklahoma, shares his thoughts about the Network for Public Education Conference in Indianapolis. He begins by trying to wrap his brain around my provocative claim that “We are winning.” After I received his post, I explained to him that everything the Reformers have tried has failed. Every promise they have made has been broken. They have run American education for a decade or a generation, depending on when you start counting, and they have nothing to show for it. I contend there is no “reform movement.” There is instead a significant number of incredibly rich men and women playing with the lives of others. The Billionaire Boys Club, plus Alice Walton, Laurene Powell Jobs, and a few other women. This is no social movement. A genuine movement has grassroots. The Reformers have none; they have only paid staff. If the money dried up, the “reform movement” would disappear. It has no troops. None. Genuine movements are built by dedicated, passionate volunteers. That’s what we have.

Thompson writes:


The Network for Public Education’s fifth annual conference was awesome. It will take me awhile to wrestle with the information about the “David versus Goliath” battle which is leading to the defeat of corporate school reform. But I will start by thinking through the lessons learned from retired PBS education reporter John Merrow and Jim Harvey, who was a senior staff member of the National Commission on Excellence in Education and the principle author of “A Nation at Risk.” Harvey is now executive director of the National Superintendents Roundtable.

Merrow explained that charters are producing “a scandal a day.” Using the type of turn of a phrase for which he is well known, Merrow said that charters have had “too much attention but not enough scrutiny.” He says that some mom and pop charters are excellent, but online charters should be outlawed. Then he punched holes in the charter-advocates’ claim that rigorous accountability systems could minimize the downsides of charters.

Merrow says that one reason why it isn’t really possible to scrutinize the costs of charters is that there is no longer a real difference between for-profit and nonprofit charters. Choice has created a system of “buyer beware.”

Harvey added that journalists have been accused of cherry-picking charter scandal reports but “there are so many cherries.” Then he recounted inside stories on the writing of the infamous “A Nation at Risk” and how the report was “hijacked,” as he provided insights into how corporate school reform spun out of control.

As Harvey and Merrow discussed, before the report it was difficult to get the press to focus on the classroom. Conflicts over busing to desegregate schools would get the public’s attention, but Harvey didn’t think that “A Nation at Risk” would attract much of an audience. He thought that the key sentence in the opening paragraph hit a balance. The sentence began with the statement that the American people “can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the well-being of its people,” and the paragraph concluded with, “What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur–others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments. “

Had it not been for manipulations of the report by those who were driven by a political agenda, the words in the middle could have been read as intended. Harvey wrote, “The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.”

Harvey didn’t write the extreme statement that followed. In fact, he had edited out the sentence, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”

Clearly the report became part of an attack on public education. In contrast to the social science which preceded it, and the research that experts like Harvey embraced, the campaign kicked off by “A Nation at Risk” blamed schools, not overall changes in society that resulted in some lowered test scores. NAEP scores were also misrepresented by categories,like “proficiency,” which facilitated falsehoods such as the idea that tests showed that 60 percent of students were below grade level.

President Ronald Reagan announced the report along with the false statement that “A Nation at Risk” included a call for prayer in the schools, school vouchers, and the abolition of the Department of Education. Then, as Reagan ran for reelection in 1984, it was clear that the report was being used demonize not just teachers but government itself.

And that leads to the emergence of venture philanthropy in the 1990s. As Merrow recalled, during and before the 1980s, donors such as Ford and Annenberg foundations tinkered around the edges in seeking answers to complex conundrums. They offered money without micromanaging school improvement. Since then, technocratic school reform was driven, in large part, by the Billionaires Boys’ Club. It “weaponized” testing in an assault on public schools.

Harvey attributed that unfortunate transition, in significant part, to the realization that education is a $750 billion industry with profits to be made. It attracted 25-year-olds who knew nothing about education, and soon they were running policy.

Had corporate reformers taken the time to scrutinize the evidence, they would have had to confront the research which existed before and after “A Nation at Risk,” and that its author respected. As Harvey and David Berliner have written, an evidenced-informed investigation would have considered “the 80 percent of their waking hours that students spend outside the school walls.” Had they looked at evidence, edu-philanthropists should have understood the need to “provide adequate health care for children and a living wage for working parents, along with affordable day-care.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/04/26/the-landmark-a-nation-at-risk-called-for-education-reform-35-years-ago-heres-how-it-was-bungled/?utm_term=.a3382caf8d2c

Whether we are talking about the obsession with test and punish micromanaging or the faith in charters, corporate reformers failed to consider the complexities of the school systems they sought to transform. But, they did their homework in terms of public relations. In addition to demonizing teachers, public schools, and other public sectors, corporate reformers stole the language of dedicated educators and civil rights. They’ve presented their teacher-bashing and privatization campaigns as a “civil rights” movement.

Educators must reclaim our language, and craft messages for a new, constructive, holistic campaign to improve schools. One step toward new conversations requires us to learn from the past. John Merrow and Jim Harvey are remarkable sources of institutional history and the wisdom required for the type of discussions that are necessary.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Corporate Reformers, Education Reform, Network for Public Education, Parent Groups, Teachers

California: Tuck Refuses to Withdraw or Apologize for Vicious Campaign Ad Smearing Thurmond

By dianeravitch
November 2, 2018 //
0

Will big money buy the position of State Superintendent of Public Instruction in California? Will false ads carry Marshall Tuck to victory?

The ACLU OF Northern California condemned the Marshall Tuck campaign for mailers falsely asserting that it had “sued Tony Thurmond.” It had not, and the ACLU demanded that the campaign withdraw the ad and offer an apology to Thurmond. Tuck refused.

Tuck is running a campaign based on lies. His character has been revealed. Will the public catch on in time to stop him? Or will the public believe Tuck’s scurrilous attack ads? It is possible. Tuck has an astonishing amount of money to spend. But should California’s schools be overseen by a person of such low ethics and character.

A thought for Marshall Tuck (written by sportswriter Grantland Rice):

“For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He writes—not that you won or lost,
But how you played the game.”

Is Marshall Tuck and his billionaire backers so desperate to win that they will say or do anything? Apparently so.


See letter from ACLU to EdVoice here:

Here is a report on the ads, with links to the ads.

The dispute over negative ads has escalated, with the Thurmond campaign seeking to have an independent committee take off the air an ad that falsely claims Thurmond was reprimanded by the Obama administration.

The campaign for schools chief has attracted at least $43 million worth of contributions, most of which have gone to independent expenditure committees supporting Tuck and Thurmond.

Tuck’s backers are far outpacing Thurmond’s in fundraising: Two committees supporting Tuck have taken in $24.1 million as of Monday, while a committee supporting Thurmond has received $11.5 million. Independent expenditure committees can take donations of unlimited size but are barred from coordinating with campaigns.

The Tuck campaign had raised $4.2 million in direct contributions, compared to $2.8 million for Thurmond, as of Sept. 22, the most recent filing deadline.

The contributions have come largely from advocates of charter school expansion who back Tuck and labor groups who support Thurmond.

With two weeks to go in the race, and as some Californians are submitting early ballots for the Nov. 6 election, Tuck and Thurmond backers are spending millions of dollars on television, radio and mail advertisements. Campaign finance records show the committees supporting Tuck spent $8.1 million on television advertising alone as of the most recent campaign finance filing deadline on Sept. 22, while a committee backing Thurmond spent $4.4 million. Those totals are likely to increase substantially before Election Day.

Some of that spending has gone toward negative ads, leading Tuck and Thurmond to spar over new television commercials that criticize their records.

One recent ad from an independent expenditure committee supporting Tuck blamed Thurmond for problems in West Contra Costa Unified, the East Bay school district where Thurmond was a school board member from 2008 to 2012.

Another ad, produced by the Thurmond campaign, sought to tie Tuck to the education agenda of President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

Is it inaccurate to tie Tuck’s pro-charter history to Betsy DeVos. She supports charter schools. Tuck supports charter schools. No smear there. It’s a fact: Marshall Tuck supports school choice, like Betsy DeVos.

The anti-Thurmond ad was funded by an independent expenditure committee supporting Tuck established by EdVoice. EdVoice officials did not return multiple messages seeking comment on their ad.

“Before he was running for state superintendent, politician Tony Thurmond was responsible for a school district with widespread budget problems,” the ad states, referring to West Contra Costa Unified.

Text on the screen directly ties district problems to Thurmond. “Tony Thurmond: School Board Member”; “Tony Thurmond: Sued by the ACLU”; “Tony Thurmond: Reprimanded by the Obama Administration”; “Tony Thurmond: Failed Kids”; “Tony Thurmond: Wrong for State Superintendent.”

The voice over adds details about the district: “Ranked last in the state for failing to serve students of color. Sued for leaving at-risk students in rotting trailers with mushrooms growing in the floors. Reprimanded by the Obama Administration for failing to address widespread sexual harassment and assault in district schools. Tony Thurmond failed the students he was supposed to help. California deserves better.”

The ad does not mention that Thurmond was one of five West Contra Costa Unified board members.

The claim that Thurmond was reprimanded by the Obama administration is false. The letter from the Obama-era Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights criticizing West Contra Costa Unified’s handling of sexual harassment never mentions Thurmond or the district’s board. The letter was issued in 2013, after Thurmond left the board, though it does state the department’s investigation began during his term in 2010.

“I was never reprimanded by Obama, and I wasn’t even on the board when the letter was sent by the Department of Education,” Thurmond said. He added that the claim prompted his campaign to send a cease and desist order to the committee that produced the ad.

The ad’s statement that Thurmond was sued over school facilities is technically accurate, in that he was named as a defendant board member in an American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit against West Contra Costa Unified. However, the lawsuit named every member of the school board, along with the district, its superintendent and its associate superintendent. The district’s daily management falls to its administration, not the elected board members.

The ad mirrors criticism of Thurmond’s time in West Contra Costa in an opinion column published in the San Francisco Chronicle last month by Bill Evers, a hardcore Republican and a Tuck supporter. Evers is a research fellow at Stanford University’s conservative Hoover Institution. Evers was also a member of Trump’s education transition team. Evers is not a neutral observer. He is a rock-ribbed Republican who worked in George W. Bush’s Education Department as Assistant Secretary of Education. He was a senior advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, after the Iraq War. His endorsement serves to reinforce the fact that Tuck has a conservative agenda that is aligned with the Republican Party.

Basic fact: Tony Thurmond was endorsed by the Democratic Party. Marshall Tuck was booed at the Democratic State Convention. Tony Thurmond has run an honorable campaign. Marshall Tuck has not.

The state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, as well as Christine Pelosi, the chairwoman of the California Democratic Party’s Women’s Caucus, have also denounced the ad. While the Tuck campaign is prohibited by law from coordinating with the independent expenditure committee that produced the ad, Thurmond’s campaign has called for Tuck to disavow it.

Tuck told EdSource he would not disavow the ad. It accurately described problems in West Contra Costa Unified during Thurmond’s term, Tuck said, and “the board should be held accountable for that.” But, he also stressed that the ad was outside of his control.

Andrew Blumenfeld, Tuck’s campaign manager, also defended the ad.

“Assembly member Thurmond uses his time on the school board as evidence of his ability to serve as state superintendent,” Blumenfeld said. “I think it’s well within bounds to question what was the quality of his leadership when he was on the school board.”

The California publication EdSource predicts that the race is on track to cost $50 million, with Tuck having a 2-1 advantage over Thurmond.

“The largest donors to EdVoice for the Kids PAC, which managed independent campaign committees for Tuck and other activities, are real estate developer Bill Bloomfield, $5.3 million; Doris Fisher, co-founder of the Gap clothing company, $3.1 million and venture capitalist Arthur Rock, $3 million.”

Tuck has been endorsed by Meg Whitman, chair of the board of Teach for America, by billionaire Michael Bloomberg of New York, by Christopher Cerf, who was appointed to be state commissioner in New Jersey by Republican Governor Chris Christie.

See info here:

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1243091&session=2017
Edvoice for the Kids PAC

Contributors here: http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1243091&session=2017&view=received

Contributions made (mostly to Tuck campaign) http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1243091&session=2017&view=contributions

See attached; expenditures of $4.9M since 09/17/2018 to two separate subcommittees

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1243091&session=2017&view=expenditures

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, California, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Ethics, Fraud, Lies, Privatization

Los Angeles Teacher: Why I Am Voting for Tony Thurmond

By dianeravitch
November 2, 2018 //
4

Marcy Winograd tought in the high schools of Los Angeles for 25 years.

She explains in this article why she is voting for Tiny Thurmond for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

“This November,, Californians can choose a candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction with a track record of supporting our public schools – Oakland Assemblyman Tony Thurmond – or another far less qualified candidate Marshall Tuck—whose allegiance to the school privatization agenda threatens to bankrupt public school districts.

“I am a retired public high school English and special education teacher with 25 years experience in the Los Angeles Unified School District. For me, there’s only one right answer on this no-brainer.

“I’m voting for Tony Thurmond, a 20-year social worker, with 12 years experience working in schools, who served on both the Richmond City Council and the West Contra Costa School Board before his election to the State Assembly in 2014.

“Though both Thurmond and Tuck are registered Democrats, only Thurmond won the endorsement of the state Democratic Party – this with 89% of the delegate vote after Thurmond delivered an electrifying speech at the state convention in San Diego…

“While Thurmond toiled in the trenches as a social worker, running programs for foster youth and mental health afterschool programs, Tuck worked as an investment banker on Wall Street, rubbing shoulders with billionaires looking for the next hot stock. Later, Tuck—a Harvard business school graduate – became Chief Operating Officer for Los Angeles’ Green Dot charter school chain, which operates 29 charter schools throughout California.

“Green Dot schools are far from the wild success story that Tuck purports them to be. Green Dot school Animo Charter in Inglewood had the lowest test scores among all charter school chains – scoring zero percent proficient in 2005, 2006, and 2007 in student readiness in English to enter Cal State University.

“Tuck’s biggest backers – the California Charter School Association and the Waltons of Walmart fortune – are tethered to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ education privatization agenda that seeks to rob public schools of funding and funnel those dollars into charter schools that operate in the shadows.

“Out of the public eye, charter schools may hire administrators without credentials, use textbooks that lack state approval, appoint unaccountable school board members and cherry-pick their students to cast off the highest need students – special education students, English learners – to the neighborhood public school. Tuck’s list of supporters and benefactors – Walmart son Jim Walton (net worth 45 billion), real estate magnate Eli Broad (net worth 6.7 billion), venture capitalist Arthur Rock (net worth 1.1 billion) is a who’s who in the contemporary world of public education deconstruction, leaving far too many students behind and an education system ripe for Wall Street bankers ready to capitalize on a profitable burgeoning education market…

“In 2008 Tuck stepped down from Green Dot to become CEO of the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools (PLAS), a small group of privately managed LAUSD public schools that included elementary, middle and high schools.

“Recalled Tuck in an interview with the San Diego Union Tribune, “ …when I left Green Dot, we were opening new schools and building new cultures and then doing some you know, turnarounds, to the Partnership where we were doing you know turnarounds of existing schools.”

“This “turnaround” resulted in PLAS schools underperforming compared to LAUSD schools with similiar demographics, despite millions raised in additional private funding.

“Moreover, in nine out of ten PLAS schools, Tuck received landslide votes of “no confidence” from teachers.

“In Watts, at Ritter Elementary school, where 42% of the student body were English learners, Tuck unilaterally abolished a prized dual language immersion program, outraging parents who accused him of disregarding their civil rights and violating the State Education Code, one Tuck routinely rails against for its regulations.

“Meanwhile, students at Santee HS in downtown Los Angeles complained vociferously when Tuck slashed their popular ethnic studies classes in which they discussed racial and gender stereotypes, as well as their cultural heritage.

“What Tuck lacked in ability to improve educational outcomes he made up for with punitive policies against students of color.In the last year of Tuck’s tenure, 2012-2013, Markham Middle School and Samuel Gompers Middle Schools reported suspension rates of 14% and 17% respectively—shameful statistics in light of the overall LAUSD suspension rate of 1.7%. According to arecent report from the UCLA Civil Rights Project suspensions resulted in over 760,000 days of lost instruction in the 2016-2017 school year alone, with students of color in grades 7-8 the most impacted, a particularly distrubing finding because repeated suspensions set up students for failure, for what policy makers term “push-out”—pushing the most challenging students—the ones who need counseling and mentoring the most—onto the street to drop out of school althogether in 9th grade. This is what they call the school-to-prison pipeline…

“Ultimately, we need a state schools chief who believes in our public schools and public teachers, not one who goes to war against them.

“California voters must decide: vote for the teachers’ choice, Tony Thurmond, or the billionaires’ choice, Marshall Tuck.”

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

Laura Chapman on Ohio’s Nonsensical and Destructive Report Cards for Schools

By dianeravitch
November 2, 2018 //
15

The idea of giving A-F grades to schools was a Jeb Bush invention. It is an almost perfect mirror of the poverty or affluence of the students in the school. Schools with high poverty levels will get low grades. This sets them up to be stigmatized as failures and to become juicy targets for tskeover and privatization. The privatizers keep the students they want and toss away those they don’t want. Meanwhile, the public money flows to private hands.

Laura Chapman here examines Ohio’s school report cards, which contain “multiple measures” to end up with the same result as a report card based only on test scores, which themselves measure family income and education.

She wrote this comment:

“The key components of the 2018 Ohio School Report Cards.

The six components are:

Achievement,
Gap Closing,
Improving At-Risk K-3 Readers,
Progress,
Graduation Rate,
Prepared for Success.

Districts and schools receive A-F grades on each of the six components and most of the individual measures for each component (e.g.a letter grade is assigned to Ohio’s EVASS metrics based on test scores. EVASS is a version of totally discredited VALUE-ADDED Metrics).

For the first time, districts and schools will be assigned overall letter grades. (e.g., Your school is D. Your school is an F.)

Here is the pitch for this ridicule-worthy scheme.

“Report cards are designed to give parents, communities, educators and policymakers information about the performance of districts and schools – to celebrate success and identify areas for improvement. This information identifies schools to receive intensive supports, drives local conversations on continuous improvement and provides transparent reporting on student performance. The goal is to ensure equitable outcomes and high expectations for all of Ohio’s students.”

One of these days I may count how many data points Ohio has shoved into the convoluted report card. Some are hardwired by the fools elected to the state house. Others are there in part from federal regulations. The rest are the product of a belief system that says, in effect measurement is an objective and infallible substitute for good judgment. Of course, the Report card grades track the relative affluence of the districts in Ohio and they are meaningless for Charter Schools. A recent conversation with a state school board member, running for re-election revealed total ignorance of problems with the value-added metric or the cost of the SAS contract for that misleading exercise.

reportcard.education.ohio.gov

Categories Accountability, Bush, Jeb, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Ohio, Privatization, Testing

New York City: Harlem Residents Tell New Chancellor Their Concerns about Charter Invasion

By dianeravitch
November 1, 2018 //
20

New York City’s Chancellor Richard Carranza held a town hall meeting in Harlem and must have been surprised when the biggest concern expressed was the proliferation of charters.

The meeting “was dominated by parents’ fears of charter schools expanding in the neighborhood.”

What a surprise to listen to parents instead of the charter lobbyists.

The latter must have forgotten to pack the room with hundreds of students in matching T-shirts, chanting about the need to close public schools and open more charters.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, New York City, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »