This is the election for State Superintendent of Public Instruction in less than two minutes.
Stop the corporate takeover of public education in California.
Please email it to every voter you know in California. Tweet it. Share it on social media.
Archives for category: Charter Schools
California has more charter schools than any other state. In part, this is because Governor Jerry Brown is a charter school ally, having opened two charters when he was mayor of Oakland. This great progressive governor had a blind spot about charters and ignored the proliferation of charters that were fraudulent and openly embezzled money from taxpayers to fatten their own wallets.
The study linked below lists the billionaires who bought the LAUSD election in 2017.
These are the same billionaires who are now bankrolling Marshall Tuck in his bid to become State Superintendent of Public Instruction. In that role, he would manage the growth of the charter industry and the decline of public schools. This is exactly the goal of Betsy DeVos.
A vote for Tony Thurmond is a vote to stop privatization and to improve public schools.
See the entire report on “out of town billionaires” here.
Learn the names of those who want to purchase the public sector and hand it over to pother entrepreneurs.
Will the voters be hoaxed?
Fred Klonsky writes that teachers at 15 charter schools voted overwhelmingly to strike.
Teachers at 15 Chicago charter schools have voted 98 percent to authorize a strike as they continue to bargain a contract with Acero Schools, the largest unionized charter network in the city, and with other charter school networks.
UNO, which later became Acero, founded the charter-school chain in 1998, and it grew quickly with the help of Democratic Party politicians like Governor Pat Quinn and Speaker Michael Madigan. The Governor and the Speaker worked out a 2009 law handing over $98 million in state grant money for UNO to build schools.
For years, the organization and its charter network were run by Juan Rangel, UNO’s clout-heavy chief executive officer.
Rangel was Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral campaign chairman.
Rangel was forced to resign his charter leadership position – with its $275,000-a-year salary – following one of many Rahm school scandals.
In addition to tens of millions of dollars in state funding, UNO received millions more from CPS.
Some politicians, like then-Governor Pat Quinn, distanced themselves from Rangel and UNO after it was reported UNO had paid millions out of the state funding to construction companies owned by brothers of Rangel’s top deputy, Miguel d’Escoto.
In a June 2014 civil settlement the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused UNO of defrauding bond investors by “making materially misleading statements” about the construction contracts.
Rangel later paid a little $10,000 fine.
While operating the schools, which serve largely Hispanic students, UNO was a big spender.
But not on its teachers or classrooms or students.
It charged more than $60,000 for restaurants on Rangel’s American Express “business platinum” card in one year and spent more than $60,000 a year on travel in 2010 and 2011. Records show Rangel flew out of town 31 times in four years at the group’s expense.
Charter teacher salaries are far below those of their counterparts in regular CPS schools. By state law Chicago charter teachers are not covered by the regular CTU contract.
The National Education Policy Center interviewed Bruce Baker about his review of a much-ballyhooed study of the impact of market forces in the New Orleans schools.
The Education Research Alliance at Tulane University released a study last July declaring that the privatization of almost every school in New Orleans was a great success. That very day, Betsy DeVos gave $10 Million to ERA to become a federally-funded National Center on School Choice. The report was written by Douglas Harris and Matthew Larsen.
Bruce Baker, a researcher at Rutgers University, has studied charter schools, school funding and equity for years. He was commissioned by NPE to review the ERA study.
His conclusion: Harris and Larsen had minimized the importance of demographic changes following the hurricane and the enormous influx of new funding. These changes alone, he said, could have accounted for the effects in New Orleans documented by the ERA.
A federal appeals court ordered the Delta Charter School to accept more African-American students.
The school expanded into another parish, which was under a desegregation order.
The parish schools were 49.5% black. The new Delta Charter was 15% black.
A federal appeals court has affirmed almost all of a district court’s remedies to get Delta Charter School to accept more African-American students and stop violating a consent decree with Concordia Parish School District.
“The district court ordered that Delta could not enroll students from other parishes under desegregation orders without permission from the relevant school boards,” a three-judge U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel said in its 19-page ruling filed Oct. 12. “This requirement appears intended to limit Delta’s interference with the desegregation obligations of other parishes. But Delta’s consent decree says nothing about other parishes.”
Denis Smith worked for many years for the Ohio Department of Education. When he retired, he was employed in the office that oversees charter schools. He has written many articles about the scams and frauds that charter operators get away with in Ohio, as well as some that they don’t get away with.
He wrote me recently to say that the five most common words in charterdom are:
“The defendant will please rise.”
Isn’t it interesting that the pro-charter candidates, no matter which school district or city or state they live in, do not admit they are pro-charter.
Apparently the public is catching on, and it is not a good thing to admit that you want more charters.
Suddenly, everyone—even the execrable governor’s Scott Walker and Doug Ducey of AZ—call them selves “the Education Governor” and boast about (lie about) have they have helped public schools. Don’t believe them.
Any candidate funded by the Koch brothers, The Walton Family, Eli Broad, Reed Hastings, or Michael Bloomberg is a Pro-Charter Candidate. They are coming to privatize your public school and replace it with a national corporate chain school.
Valerie Strauss summarizes the race between Marshall Tuck and Tony Thurmond.
Tuck has raised nearly $30 million from the billionaires who support charter schools; Thurmond has raised about $15 million, mostly from labor unions, teachers, and Democrats.
Tuck is supported by the Republican party. Although he claims to be a Democrat, he was booed at the state Democratic convention.
She writes:
One of the loudest and most expensive state races in the country is between two Democrats vying to win the nonpartisan position of superintendent of public instruction in California. More money is being spent on the race — for a position that has no independent policymaking power — than in most U.S. Senate campaigns.
The fight — the costliest in the state’s history for this post, with more than $43 million in campaign contributions, according to EdSource — is between state legislator Tony Thurmond and Marshall Tuck, a former charter school network president.
Thurmond, who was elected to the California State Assembly in 2014 from the East Bay, has been a teacher, social worker, city councilman and school board member. Tuck is a former banker who became the first president of the Green Dot network of charter schools in Los Angeles. After that, he founded a nonprofit that used privately donated money from the wealthy to help turn around troubled traditional public schools. Four years ago, he ran unsuccessfully for state superintendent in a race that cost some $30 million (with a lot of it coming from billionaires backing Tuck)…
The fight between Thurmond and Tuck is the latest chapter in a long-running debate about public education in a state with a scandal-ridden charter school sector and severely underfunded traditional school districts. California has more charter schools — which are publicly funded but privately operated — and more charter students than any state.
Should Tuck win, supporters of charter schools will take heart. If Thurmond triumphs, supporters of traditional public education will.
Tuck has raised far more than Thurmond, about $5 million in direct contributions, compared with $3.1 million for Thurmond, according to the Associated Press. Most of the money in the race has gone through political committees that can accept unlimited amounts of money but are not allowed to coordinate with the campaigns. In this arena, Tuck is far ahead, with two committees backing him taking in $24.1 million, according to Ed Source, with a committee supporting Thurmond’s bid taking in $11.5 million so far.
Much of Tuck’s contributions have come from billionaires who support charter schools and many who live out of state. Wealthy donors include Michael Bloomberg of New York; Eli Broad of Los Angeles; and Alice Walton of Texas, who has donated millions of dollars to his campaigns over a period of years. Netflix chief Reed Hastings and Gap founder Doris Fisher have also donated. And, not surprisingly, he is backed by the California Charter Schools Association (which celebrated the controversial 2017 confirmation of Betsy DeVos as U.S. education secretary).
We will find out in a few days whether out of state billionaires can buy the race.
Robert Skeels does a deep dive into Marshall Tuck’s record and decides that his ethnocentric values do not suit him to be the next Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Based on his experience in the charter sector, Tuck claims to be an educator, but Skeels pegs him as a banker.
Tuck’s friends in the charter industry claim that Tuck was a great success but Skeels questions their data.
Skeels writes:
Business banker Marshall Tuck is running for California State Superintendent of Public Instruction again. He’s backed by the same ideologically charged billionaires as the last time — several of whom supported reactionary measures like Proposition 8. With nearly unlimited funding, voters will be deluged with Tuck’s messaging. There’ll be plenty of unsubstantiated claims that he ran successful schools.
Marshall Tuck is running for California State Superintendent of Public Instruction again, backed by the same ideologically charged billionaires as the last time — several of whom supported reactionary measures like Proposition 8.
Those ads won’t reveal the truth about Tuck’s record. There’ll be no mention that when he ran the Green Dot Charter Corporation, one of his high schools “achieved” the dubious distinction of back-to-back years of absolutely zero students scoring proficient on the mathematics portion of the California State University (CSU) entrance examination. There won’t be discussion of how, under Tuck, one Partnership for Los Angeles Schools’ (PLAS) high school went five years without achieving even twenty percent of students scoring proficient on either the mathematics or the English portion of those same CSU exams. Five years. These awful proficiency rates were reflected in Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) scores as well. Under Tuck’s “leadership” the schools he managed were among the very lowest scorers on the SAT in Los Angeles County, year after year.
Tuck’s record of terrible academic results isn’t the only issue that will be carefully obscured. His abject treatment of students of color, in a fashion much like his contemporary counterparts Tom Horne and John Huppenthal in Arizona, is something he works hard to hide. It’s time to shine a bright light on this.
Using their positions of authority, Tuck, Horne, and Huppenthal closed down popular, research proven, Ethnic Studies programs. Tuck did it at PLAS schools like Santee High School when he was their “CEO.” The other two did it while they were Superintendents of Public Schools in Arizona. Tuck went a step further than the others — he also restricted and shuttered both Heritage Language Programs and Dual Language Immersion programs. These important language programs were well regarded and research proven. The language program closures and restrictions were so egregious that a Uniform Complaint Cause of Action was filed jointly by Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and Public Counsel Law Center on behalf of the families whose civil rights Tuck violated. Additionally, Tuck closed down other critical programs including health education .
In the end, after a long battle, Horne and Huppenthal’s attacks on students of color by eliminating Ethnic Studies in Arizona were defeated in court. The judge’s opinion noted that the two were “capitalizing on race-based fears.” Both politicians would later find themselves voted out of office. Tuck, whose record on these programs mirrors that of Horne and Huppenthal, is facing a California with very different values than his. In 2016, in contradiction to Tuck’s penchant for opposing bilingualism, Californian voters passed Proposition 58 — reestablishing bilingualism as mainstream. Furthermore, school districts have been passing resolutions instituting Ethnic Studies programs. On the state level advances for Ethnic Studies like AB-2016 have proven that Californians don’t share Tuck’s aversion to programs that celebrate diversity and encourage youth to explore their history.
Dr. Bill Smith of Johnson City, Tennessee, watched the two candidates for Governor of Tennessee debate and focus on education as key to the state’s future.
The Republican, Bill Lee, swore his allegiance to the party line and endorsed charters and vouchers. He goes full Betsy DeVos.
The Democrat, Karl Dean, pledged his devotion to “public education” and his love for charter schools, which have failed in Tennessee. Dean goes partial Betsy DeVos.
Surely both men know that the Tennessee Achievement School District spent $100 million of Race to the Top money to turn low-scoring schools over to charters, and the ASD was a colossal failure. $100 million wasted.
Why do they want more of the same?
Dr. Smith writes with more wisdom than either candidate:
It’s no secret that non-profit charter schools often divert money intended for children’s instruction to other priorities. For example, many charters compensate their “CEOs” two to three times the salaries of principals who perform the same functions in regular public schools. Vision Academy in Nashville pays its two top executives (a married couple) a combined $562,000, while reportedly charging students for textbooks. (Imagine the outcry if a local public school engaged in such financial behavior.)
The Oct. 9 debate between Lee and Dean was — like the rest of their campaign — noteworthy for its civility. They both seem to be good, decent men, and they exhibit many of the leadership qualities we should all want in our governor. Moreover, when you listen to them talk about educational reforms, their arguments seem very compelling — until you carefully consider the facts.
Lee is either delusional or disingenuous to assert that he would do nothing to diminish public education but is fully in favor of vouchers and charters. The point of offering these choices is to diminish public education, and the evidence indicates that it is working.
Further, when he says we should give students educational alternatives, identify the “best practices” to emerge from these settings, and then implement these model approaches in public schools, he is describing the central promise of the charter school movement when it first emerged in the 1990s. In the beginning, the plan was that charter schools would be relieved of regulatory oversight so that they could explore creative practices and then export their best ideas to public education. Unfortunately, that never happened.
This failure raises a fundamental question that Lee, Dean and other charter advocates do not address (in my opinion, because they can’t). If charter schools are as wonderful as they claim, why won’t they tell us what makes these schools so effective? If you knew the cure to a dreadful disease, would you keep it to yourself?
The charter folks remind me of the old snake oil salesmen who appeared unexpectedly one morning, sold their mysterious elixirs, and slipped out of town at dusk. They made incredible claims about the benefits found in those opaque bottles, but they never told anyone what the ingredients were. “Trust me,” they said. “It’ll cure whatever ails you.”
Let’s be clear. Advocates of charters and vouchers can’t tell us why these educational alternatives are better because they simply aren’t. Moreover, most of the people pushing for choice don’t want to improve public education. They want to undermine it so that they can profit from educational privatization. The only reason they want relaxed regulatory oversight is so that they can funnel as much of our tax dollars as possible into their own pockets without us noticing.
I believe that Dean is sincere about his support for public education, and I will vote for him for that reason. To his credit, he opposes all forms of choice except for non-profit charters, and I hope that he will realize one day that they too have failed to live up to expectations. He is kidding himself when he denounces the undermining effects of vouchers on public education while simultaneously advocating for charters (even in a limited capacity) and not seeing that they too draw resources away from public schools.
Democrats who still think there’s a place for charter schools need to reconsider that position. If there was ever a useful role for charters in our educational system, it has long since been high-jacked and corrupted beyond redemption. Charters are simply one more weapon for market fundamentalists to employ in their effort to privatize public education.
Laura Chapman, tireless researcher, did a cursory scan of the abundance of billionaire cash flowing into charter schools, enhanced by another $400 million from the U.S. Department of Education. There are literally dozens more foundations and organizations pouring money into the charter industry, such as Reed Hastings (Netflix), Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg, John Arnold (ex-Enron), Michael Dell (computers), the Fisher Family (Old Navy, the Gap), and many more.
Why is the U.S. Department of Education pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into this well-funded industry? Betsy DeVos recently handed out $399 million to jump-start new charter schools, even in districts and states where there is no demand. Next year, Congress has allotted $450 million for charters, whether they are wanted or not.
What is clear from Laura’s review is that charter schools are not in need of funding. They are in need of accountability, transpency, stability, supervision, regulation, and integrity.
She writes:
I just did an analysis of these USDE grants, announced by Politico, in tandem with the Walton Foundation 2020 plan for charter school grants. Of course charters have many big funders. For example the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has propped up the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the National Association of Charter School Authorizers with grants to date of $35,954,074.
The 2020 plan from the Walton Family Foundation (prepared in 2015) begins with the prideful claim that the Walton Family Foundation (Walmart wealth) has supported 1 in 4 charter schools.
The 2020 plan provides for a five year investment totaling $1 billion for charter schools and supporters.
Between the Walton Family Foundation and USDE grants, thirty states will see inflows of funds for charters and with only a few exceptions (five), these states will have funds from both sources (in addition to many other funders).
The Walton Foundation is supporting charter-friendly STATE policies in Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.
For 2018-2019, the Walton wealth is supporting charterizing in: Arkansas (any district); California (Los Angeles specific boundaries, two grants]; California (Oakland, two grants), Colorado (Denver, two grants), Georgia (Atlanta, two grants), Indiana (Indianapolis, two grants), Louisiana (New Orleans, two grants), Massachusetts (Boston); New Jersey (Camden), New York (New York City, two grants), Oklahoma (any district), Tennessee (Memphis, Shelby County), Texas (Houston ISD; San Antonio, two grants), Washington, DC (two grants). “Any district” means there are no constraints on location. Most of the two-for grants are for facilities support in addition to operational support.
All of the Walton and USDE grants are for charter school “startups,” expansions, “replications” (as in a franchise), or charter school facilities financing. It is not surprising that most of the USDE grants are complementing those of the Walton Foundation.
It is easy to forget that NCLB provided for various schemes to finance charter schools (in addition to federal funds). Now there are specialty companies in the business of building out the charter sector. Here are some of the services advertised by one of these.
Begin quote: “Charter School Capital provides flexible funding solutions so charter schools can gain ground and achieve success. Our charter school working capital financing enables school leaders the flexibility and stability to support everyday expenses and — importantly — fuel their growth.
We help charter schools access working capital so they can:
Expand or grow programs, Open a new charter school, Provide new technology in the classroom, Hire and/or develop staff, Address budget shortfalls and delays (deferrals, holdbacks, etc.) gracefully, Improve transportation options, Enrich educational programs, Buy new equipment,
Facilities Financing
Our facilities financing product is a long-term lease that allows schools to access funding through all stages of growth – from start-up to expansion through maturity. As a long-term partner, our team works closely with you as we explore budgetary and financial options to support your facilities needs.
Why long-term lease financing? You can finance 100% of project costs, You can retain control of your facility, You can plan on long-term affordability, You can enhance your existing building or finance new construction, Your lease can be customized to your school’s model – whether blended learning, traditional, etc., Tenant improvements can be financed in your lease, Can be used as take-out financing for an existing bond or potential bridge to bond financing.
We currently own 42 school properties in 11 states, more than $350 million in assets. Schools range in attendance from 135 to 1,200 students with educational programs that include college preparatory, art-focused, STEM schools, and others. Our goal is to aid charter leaders so they have accessible, flexible financing options to meet their schools needs today and the needs they have in the future.
Loan Details
The Charter School Capital loan product is a flexible financing solution that can help schools reach their enrollment and educational goals.Available to schools of all ages, Refinance options available throughout the school year to accommodate growth, Payment plans can be customized to suit school needs, Access to funding in as few as 30 days from date of initial request, Loan amounts based on annual state aid revenue and student count, allowing for increasing scale with growth, NO RESTRICTIONS PLACED UPON UTILIZATION OF FUNDS. (caps are mine, End Quote.) https://charterschoolcapital.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/csc-product-1pager_WC_Facilities_Loans_FINAL.pdf
Here is the Walton 2020 plan: https://8ce82b94a8c4fdc3ea6d-b1d233e3bc3cb10858bea65ff05e18f2.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/04/ab/555b3ee54d3792eebaf27a803400/k12-strategic-plan-overview-updated.pdf
Diane Ravitch's blog 