Archives for category: Charter Schools

Republicans like to say that Florida is their model of good education policy. Betsy DeVos said so. Not her own state, because Michigan voters rejected vouchers three times.

Florida also rejected vouchers in 2012, by a decisive vote of 55-44. They voted down the voucher proposal crafted by Jeb Bush even though it was deceptively called the “Religious Freedom Amendment.” How many people would vote against “religious freedom”? A majority, as it turned out. Had it been called “An Amendment to Permit School Vouchers,” it might have gone down 65-35% or more, as in other states. But privatization of public goods requires stealth and lying.

So Florida engaged in a workaround, led by Jeb Bush, to defy the voters’ wishes.

Because Jeb believes in “total voucherization.” He sees no role for public schools. He spends his waking hours figuring out new ways to privatize public schools and put state money into the pockets of profiteers.

He created a tax credit scheme so corporations and rich individuals could give money to a nonprofit (Step Up for Students) which then gave the money as “scholarships” to students to attend religious schools. Thus, despite the voters’ clear rejection of vouchers, Jeb ensured that Florida has them.

And of course, Florida has one of the most politically connected and corrupt charter industries in the nation. Members of the Legislature have ownership interests in charter schools and regularly vote themselves bigger tax subsidies.

Emily Talmage, who teaches in Maine, recalls the time when she applied to teach at a charter school. It was a chilling experience.

She writes:

When I was twenty-five, I interviewed at a charter school in Brooklyn.

Before I sat down to talk to the dean, I observed a kindergarten class that looked nothing like any kindergarten class I had ever seen: just shy of thirty children sitting in rows on a carpet, each with legs crossed and hands folded, all completely and utterly silent.

In my interview, the dean asked me what I noticed about the class.

“They were very well behaved,” I said.

“Yes, they were. But they sure don’t come in like that,” he answered. With icy pride in his voice, he said: “It’s only because of the hard work of our staff that they act like that.”

I took the job – foolishly – and soon found out what this “hard work” meant: scholars, as we called them, were expected to be 100% compliant at all times. Every part of the nine-hour school day was structured to prevent any opportunity for deviance; even recess, ten-minutes long and only indoors, consisted of one game chosen for the week on Monday.

We were overseers, really. Our lessons were scripted according to the needs of the upcoming state test, and so we spent our days “catching” scholars when they misbehaved, marking their misdeeds (talking, laughing, wiggling) on charts, and sending them to the dean when they acted their age too many times in one day.

There weren’t any white children at the school, but there I was – a white teacher, snapping at a room full of black children to get them to respond, in unison, to my demands.

Everyone in the nation is talking about our racist history, but do people know what type of racism is happening today, beneath our noses, under the banner of education reform?

It may be hard to believe that billionaires are deeply concerned with the well-being of poor children of color. They fight any tax ibpncreases that might reduce income inequality and improve the quality of life for the families of these children. But they are more than willing to invest in charter schools.

In this article, teacher-writer Jake Jacobs explores the charter-love of the billionaires. Bear in mind that he has only scratched the surface, as there are billionaires in Idaho (the Albertson family), in Texas (Tim Dunn), in North Carolina (Art Pope), in Washington (Bill Gates), in California (Reed Hastings, Eli Broad, Doris Fischer, etc.), all of whom would rather pay to expand charters than to pay for a successful public sector.

Jacobs spreads the blame in a bipartisan manner. But behind it all is charters instead of taxes for the rich.

Jacobs writes:

“Trump went further than Hillary, promising a rapid expansion of charter schools – but this meant charter advocates were siding with both presidential candidates. After winning, Trump wasted no time seeking out the notorious charter maven Eva Moskowitz, CEO of the 41 school Success Academy network in New York City.

“Moskowitz had financial ties to the Trump campaign through Wall Street financier John Paulson. An $8.5 million donor to Success Academy who served as economic advisor to the Trump campaign. Billionaire investor Julian Robertson who gave Success a record-shattering $25 million gift is also a donor to a prominent pro-Trump PAC.

“After meeting Trump, Moskowitz pledged support for his plan to expand charters – as well as controversial private school vouchers – but she stopped short of joining Trump’s cabinet. Next, Moskowitz offered praise to Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos (whose foundation had previously donated $300,000 to Success Academy). Moskowitz then invited Ivanka Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan to tour Success charter schools in Harlem.

“Most people do not realize that PACs allied with Moskowitz also helped engineer a political coup in Albany. Her two charter school lobbying groups, Families for Excellent Schools and Great Public Schools PAC, an offshoot of Students First NY, spent over $10 million making pro-charter donors the biggest political manipulators in NY state.

“Another group of hedge funders called New Yorkers for a Balanced Albany financed a massive advertising campaign in 2014 to keep the NY State Senate in Republican hands and pro-charter. Success Academy mega-donor Daniel Loeb contributed $1 million to the group.

“Also pushing charter schools is Reclaim NY, a PAC disguised as a “charity” backed by reclusive billionaire Robert Mercer. When it’s founding VP Steve Bannon stepped down to work in Trump’s White House, it illustrated why The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer reported Mercer has “surrounded” Trump with “his people” by “paying for their seats.”

“MAYORAL CONTROL MATTERS

“As the plan to expand charter schools in NY starts with wealthy donors who in turn fund legislators, an important focus is wresting control from local stakeholders who might oppose charters opening in their neighborhood.

“Just as we see in charter-heavy Chicago, the key to this in NYC was mayoral control. In 2002, the NY legislature upstate first granted then-mayor Michael Bloomberg unilateral control of NYC schools for a term of seven years, dissolving locally-elected school boards. Because Bloomberg was an advocate for privatizing education and had successfully expanded charters, he was granted a six-year renewal in 2009.”

Tony Evers, the State Superintendent of Instruction in Wisconsin, has announced that he will run against Scott Walker for governor. Walker is a puppet of the Koch brothers who achieved national notoriety for breaking the state teachers’ union in 2011 and for advocating for charter schools and vouchers. Despite the poor performance of vouchers in Milwaukee, which adopted them in 1990–Walker expanded them.


Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s state superintendent of public instruction announced on Wednesday, August 23 that he plans to run for governor against Scott Walker. In his speech declaring his candidacy, he promised to invest in children, public schools, and the middle class, and declared that he will heal the political divide exploited by Scott Walker and Donald Trump.

“Make no mistake—Donald Trump is using the same playbook Scott Walker has been using in Wisconsin for years to create divisions and pit people against each other,” Evers said in his announcement speech to about seventy-five people at McKee Farms Kids Crossing Dream Park in Fitchburg, Wisconsin.

The setting for his announcement was symbolic of the values Evers’s candidacy represents, he said: a public park where kids of all backgrounds come to play together: “It’s democracy for little kids—I love it.”

“We must be clear: Trump and Walker are not the symptom of our divisions,” Evers added. “They are the cause.”

Evers is optimistic that voters will respond to a better, more community-minded vision if one is presented to them.

He points out that on the same day Wisconsin voted for Trump, majorities in local school districts all over the state (including in Republican areas) voted to raise property taxes on themselves to support their local public schools.

“On the morning of November 9, when you looked at the results of referendum after referendum, they told a completely different story from the election of Donald Trump,” he noted in an interview with The Progressive.

He made a similar point in his speech: “Scott Walker’s policies have forced almost a million people to raise their own taxes in the last three elections. And these are local people—Democrats, independents, and Republicans.”

That’s important because it shows, in Evers’s view, that when it comes to issues where people feel they have a direct stake in their communities—like maintaining their local public schools—voters do not support the Republican slash-and-burn agenda. As Evers puts it, “Local communities get it. Walker doesn’t get it.

Evers himself has won statewide election three times with big majorities, while fighting Walker’s budget cuts and efforts to expand school vouchers, which further drain resources from public schools. In the last election he won 70 percent of the vote and carried 70 of 72 counties.

His candidacy is all about the core issue of defending public education as an engine of democracy and equal opportunity—an issue that has been at the center of Wisconsin politics throughout the Walker era.

Eric Mears, a teacher in a public high school in the South Bronx, complains that his high school seniors were required to read a pro-charter essay in a Houghton Mifflin textbook.

My Public School Students Read Pro-Charter Propaganda

The essay, by Malcolm Gladwell, celebrated the work ethic in East Asian schools and at KIPP, while putting down the students’ neighborhood and school.

Mears wonders why Gladwell chooses East Asian schools as models for success instead of the schools of Finland.

He objects to the blatant pro-charter propaganda in the textbook.

He writes:

“I am a South Bronx public school teacher who is expected to teach my students that they must enroll in charter schools and leave “desultory” public schools, such as ours, if they wish to succeed.

“I, along with scores of other New York high school teachers, teach from a Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) Collections textbook whose introductory text is a pro-charter chapter from Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers. In it, Gladwell advances the stereotype that low-income U.S. students will only succeed if they study as hyper-industrious Japanese and South Korean students do. The text is unsuitable to teach because of its omissions and its failure to answer key counterarguments; even ones that it explicitly raises.”

The story is called “Marita’s Bargain.”
Her bargain is that she gives up her life in exchange for study.

“Gladwell…lauds a typical KIPP student, Marita, for completing so much schoolwork, including six extended days at KIPP and homework requirements, that she has little time to eat, sleep, or talk to her mother – let alone her friends. Thus is “Marita’s bargain.” She made the exceptional and costly choice of sacrificing her social life in favor of working like a “medical resident.””

The ideal of American childhood and schooling used to be “a well-rounded education.” That ideal made is the most successful nation in the world. Why sacrifice the health and well-being of a generation of children in pursuit of higher test scores? The tests themselves predict nothing about the future of a nation and they have so many inherent flaws that they should be used with care, not as a life goal.

You know how you can pick up a book, start reading, start annotating with underlining and exclamation points, then realize you are marking up almost every word?

That is Steve Nelson’s “First Do No Harm.” It is chicken soup for the educator’s soul.

Nelson recently retired as head of the progressive Calhoun School in New York City. He also just joined the board of the Network for Public Education because he wants to devote his time to the fight for better public schools for all children.

He describes progressive education as ways to engage children in thinking critically, asking questions, and engaging creatively in play and work. He knows it is endangered, even though children thrive when given the opportunity to love learning.

He recognizes the soul-deadening approach of no-excuses charters and suggests that they exhibit unconscious racism. Maybe not always unconscious.

He points out that affluent communities think they have great public schools, without recognizing that their schools are gifted by the privilege of parents and the community. The same is true of elite private schools, whose students are drawn mostly from wealthy families with every financial advantage.

Every effort to standardize education–whether it is NCLB or Common Core– robs children of the chance to think for themselves. Such top-down programs demand conformity, not critical thinking or creativity. Indeed they punish students who think differently.

Nelson goes into great detail about the harm inflicted on children by no-excuses charter schools like KIPP and Democracy Prep.

He stands strongly against vouchers, which typically are used in religious schools, where children are subject to indoctrination.

Nelson understands the link between education and democracy, education for freedom.

I recommend this book to you.

Peter Greene reports that ECOT (the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow) has found a way to escape its current woes and keep on collecting state money.

Having attracted the ire of the state for inflating enrollment, having lost its court battle to hang on to its profits for producing low-quality education, having been labeled the school with the lowest graduation rate in the nation, what’s an entrepreneur to do?

Go into the business of dropout recovery!

What a clever idea: First you create the dropouts, then you remediate them. Or claim to.

Those of you who read this blog regularly have often read insightful articles by Jeff Bryant of the Education Opportunity Network.

In this post, Jeff interviews Becky Pringle of the NEA about charters, vouchers, and other efforts to withdraw support from public schools. They were both at Netroots, a gathering of politically active progressives.

Are progressives waking up to the dangers of privatization?

In the Democratic primary in Georgia, a candidate who supported the creation of an “opportunity district” was scorned by fellow Democrats. In Virginia, a Democratic candidate who had been pals with prominent charter supporters lost the primary for governor.

Read the article and listen to the podcast.

Jeff begins like this:

Every year Netroots Nation is arguably the most important annual event in the progressive community and a barometer of what’s on the minds of “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” At this year’s event in Atlanta, the headline-making happening was Democratic primary candidate for Georgia governor Rep. Stacey Evans being shouted down by protestors holding signs saying, “Stacey Evans = Betsy DeVos,” “School Vouchers ≠ Progressive,” and “Trust Black Women” (Evans’ opponent in the primary is Georgia Rep. Stacey Abrams, who is African American.)

Protesters circulated leaflets comparing Evan’s past votes on education-related bills to positions DeVos espouses. This included her support for a constitutional amendment in 2015 that would allow the state to convert public schools to charter school management, her support for a “Parent Trigger” that would allow petition drives to convert public schools to charters, and her support of a school voucher program.

Message: Progressives support public schools, not charters or vouchers. If ALEC supports it, it is not progressive.

Most of you who have been reading this blog over the past five years know the secrets of Success Academy’s “success.” Careful selection of students. Exclusion of those unlikely to succeed. Lots of outside money.

Jersey Jazzman has done us the favor of documenting these strategies.

He found exactly what you would expect:

“Schools like Success Academy almost always have structural advantages — advantages that have nothing to do with their governance — over the schools against which they compare themselves:

“Different student populations.

“Resource advantages.

“A less-experienced, less-expensive faculty.

“A longer school day/year and/or smaller class sizes and/or tutoring, made possible by #2 & #3 in combination with free-riding on the public district schools.

“Strict disciplinary codes which encourage students who do not thrive in a “no excuses” environment to leave.

“In the minority of cases where “successful” charters out-perform expectations, I have seen no compelling evidence that freedom from teachers unions and public district school regulations, curricular innovations, or parental “choice” are what lead to “success.” Instead, some combination of the five factors above almost always provide the most reasonable explanation for the difference in outcomes.”

Eva Moskowitz pretends that she has cracked some secret code and that her methods could be applied on a large scale.

But what she has done is not replicable for an entire district. If you exclude and kick out the kids you don’t want, where will they go?

Alexandra Neason wrote an excellent and comprehensive article in Harper’s about the aggressive school choice movement in Arizona, which has been chipping away at public education for more than two decades.

She begins her story by focusing on a hard-working teacher of children with disabilities. She teaches in a windowless trailer. Her starting salary was $31,000. Now, after several years, she is earning $40,000. She buys supplies for her classroom and her students.

The legislature and the governor oppose public education. First, they introduced charters, which are unregulated and engage freely in nepotism and conflicts of interest. Then, they began shifting public funds to voucher programs.

This spring, while public school districts serving minority families and disabled children couldn’t afford basic supplies or comforts, Arizona’s legislature approved the broadest, most flexible interpretation of what Betsy DeVos, the secretary of education, and her allies tout as “school choice.” Governor Douglas Anthony Ducey, buoyed by fellow Republicans on both sides of the statehouse, signed a law expanding Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, Arizona’s take on school vouchers. Typically, vouchers use tax dollars to pay private institutions; through E.S.A.’s, money that could otherwise fund public education is loaded directly onto debit cards that select parents can use to subsidize private tuition and related expenses. Similar programs exist elsewhere — in Florida, Mississippi, and Tennessee — though those limit eligibility to families with children who are disabled; Nevada developed an unrestricted program, but courts have blocked its funding. More than any other state, Arizona has managed to bolster E.S.A.’s as a way to advance alternatives to traditional schooling. That makes it a model for conservatives across the country, yet Piehl and her colleagues view the legislature’s decision as the latest example of a disturbing trend: divestment from public education.

Today, Arizona is home to more than 500 charters, both nonprofit and for-profit. And its legislature is eager to divert more money to religious and private schools.

500 charters — both not-for-profit and for-profit — operate throughout the state.

In 1997, Arizona further expanded its school choice offerings by passing the nation’s first tax-credit program for education. Through this program, people could donate money to nonprofit organizations that had established scholarships for kids to attend private schools; the donor would receive a dollar-for-dollar tax break, a benefit initially expected to cost the state $4.5 million per year.

Private schools receiving funds this way, many of them religious, began to increase their tuition and publish step-by-step guides instructing parents in how to apply for the scholarships. (Among these schools was Northwest Christian, in Phoenix, whose elementary science and social studies curricula were developed by BJU Press, a creationist publishing house.) Over the years, the legislature passed bills to expand the program — including one that enabled companies to participate — and the tax breaks eventually topped $140 million. Between 2010 and 2014, one group, the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, received $72.9 million in donations, triggering the same amount in tax breaks. By law, such organizations are allowed to keep 10 percent of donations to pay for operational costs, and in 2013, according to IRS filings, the executive director of Arizona Christian received $145,705. The executive director, as it happens, was Steve Yarbrough, a Republican who is now the president of the state senate. His earnings were reported to the public; the tax-credit program nevertheless continues to thrive.

The parents and educators of Arizona are finally fighting back. They gathered more than 100,000 signatures to get a referendum on the ballot in 2018, which will challenge the expansion of vouchers.

Eighty-five percent of the students in Arizona go to public schools. If their parents and educators stand up for them, the voucher program will be routed next year, as it has been in every state that has held a referendum. Expect the Koch brothers and other billionaires to pour money into Arizona to fulfill the dreams of Betsy DeVos. Don’t be surprised if the DeVos Foundations (there are more than one) fund the fight to disinvest in public education.