Archives for category: Corporate Reform
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Russ Walsh: School Choice and the Faustian Bargain

By dianeravitch
April 23, 2017 //
25

In the wake of Betsy and Randi’s visit together to a public school in Ohio, Russ Walsh reflects on how school choice affects democracy. Every dollar that goes to a charter or voucher is taken away from public schools like those they visited. “Choice” means budget cuts to the public school, and it means that public dollars go to privately controlled schools.


“While the school that DeVos and Weingarten visited is in a heavily Republican district in Ohio, the voters there are no fans of school choice. As one voter put it, vouchers are “like theft.” “It’s saying we passed a levy to go to our school district, and it’s going somewhere else.” Exactly. School choice is theft of our tax dollars and theft of our democracy.

Choice sounds so democratic, so quintessentially American that voucher and charter school champions keep using the term to hoodwink people into thinking that choice in schooling is a good thing. I suggest that those of us who oppose vouchers and charter schools call school choice what it is in the eyes of that Ohio voter, tax theft. The government collects our taxes in order to provide essential services to all of us. There is no choice involved, we all must pay taxes (unless, apparently, we are hugely wealthy). Those essential services include providing for a military, promoting research on health and welfare, providing for police and fire protection, and funding public schools. When money is diverted from the support of the public schools, it amounts to, as the Ohio voter said, theft. Or maybe another way to say it is “taxation without representation”, since voters have no voice and no oversight of how tax money is spent in schools that receive money through vouchers or charters.

It should be readily apparent that corporate education reformers are anti-democracy. In city after city around the country democratically elected school boards have been replaced by boards appointed by the mayor or governor. In Philadelphia, an appointed board has been in place for nearly two decades and the deterioration of the schools has continued unabated. In Detroit, in Betsy DeVos’ home state, the state took over the schools and has systematically led them into chaos. And let us remember that DeVos has spent millions to get legislation passed in Michigan that limits any kind of oversight for voucher and charter schools. So quite literally these schools are stealing public funds with no accountability as to how they spend it…

When parents send their children to charter schools or voucher schools, they are looking for a better opportunity for their children. We can all understand the appeal of that. What parents may not realize is that they have entered into a Faustian bargain. In order to get this shiny new toy of a voucher, they must give up their voice in their child’s education. No elected school board, no independent audit, no budget vote, no say in school policies.

In this drama, Betsy DeVos plays a willing Mephistopheles, offering choice, but getting you to sign away your voice. Without a voice, there is no democracy.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Democracy, Privatization, School Choice, Vouchers

How Jeb Bush and His Foundation for Educational Excellence Profited Their Corporate Sponsors

By dianeravitch
April 23, 2017 //
31

This is not a new article but it remains timely and worthy of your attention.

Jeb Bush runs an organization called the Foundation for Educational Excellence. Betsy DeVos was a member of his board. FEE receives corporate contributions. It works closely with ALEC, the rightwing corporate-sponsored organization that lobbies for charters, vouchers, and against teachers’ unions and tenure.

In the Public Interest was able to obtain a trove of emails that revealed the influence of FEE in several states, including Florida, New Mexico, Maine, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Rhode Island.

The e-mails are between the Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE) and a group Bush set up called Chiefs for Change, whose members are current and former state education commissioners who support Bush’s agenda of school reform, which includes school choice, online education, retention of third-graders who can’t read and school accountability systems based on standardized tests. That includes evaluating teachers based on student test scores and grading schools A-F based on test scores. John White of Louisiana is a current member, as is Tony Bennett, the new commissioner of Florida who got the job after Indiana voters rejected his Bush-style reforms last November and tossed him out of office.

Donald Cohen, chair of the nonprofit In the Public Interest, a resource center on privatization and responsible for contracting in the public sector, said the e-mails show how education companies that have been known to contribute to the foundation are using the organization “to move an education agenda that may or not be in our interests but are in theirs.”

He said companies ask the foundation to help state officials pass laws and regulations that make it easier to expand charter schools, require students to take online education courses, and do other things that could result in business and profits for them. The e-mails show, Cohen said, that Bush’s foundation would often do this with the help of Chiefs for Change and other affiliated groups.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Bush, Jeb, Charter Schools, Chiefs for Change, Corporate Reform, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Florida, For-Profit, Privatization, Testing

Busted Pencils on the New Documentary: “Backpack Full of Cash”

By dianeravitch
April 22, 2017 //
16

Tim Slekar regularly posts podcasts of high value to the resistance, to those fighting privatization and high stakes testing.

This episode features an interview with Sarah Mondale and Vera Aronow, the veteran filmmakers whose new documentary tells the story of the organized assault on public education. Please take the time to listen.

In 2001, Sarah Mondale and Sarah Patton made a four-part documentary called “School,” which ran on PBS and was turned into a book.

The new film is titled “Backpack Full of Cash,” the term corporate reformers use to describe their goal: every child with a backpack full of cash, taking it anywhere he or she chooses.

It is narrated by Matt Damon.

We should all call PBS, which recently ran a series opposing public schools and touting the glories of the free market, and urge them to give airtime to this documentary. PBS is probably trying to curry favor with the Trump administration to stop the defunding of public television. It is sad, don’t you think, that public television gives airtime to a show attacking public education?

Send emails to: http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback/

Categories Corporate Reform, Corporate Reformers, Privatization, School Choice

Gary Rubinstein: The Oops Factor at Bill Gates’ Favorite School in Colorado

By dianeravitch
April 21, 2017 //
16

The trouble with hailing a school as a model is that you can’t predict what might happen next year.

This has never stopped Bill Gates!

In 2012, he visited the Eagle Valley High School in Colorado. In 2013, he celebrated the school in his annual letter as one that was successfully adopting his ideas.

But…Gary Rubinstein reviewed Eagle Valley High School’s latest state report, and it is no longer a model school. Gary doesn’t know why. Maybe it is just a regular school. No miracles here. Or maybe it is the Kiss of Gates.

Update On Colorado District That Gates Praised in 2013

Categories Accountability, Colorado, Corporate Reform, Education Reform, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Testing

Betsy and Randi Visit a Rural School District in Ohio

By dianeravitch
April 21, 2017 //
47

Betsy DeVos and Randi Weingarten visited the public schools of rural Van Wert, Ohio. Randi wanted Betsy to see how important federal dollars are to a good public school. Betsy went along and got a promise from Randi to tour a school of choice with her.

Education Week says the “rifts” between them remain. Yeah, a rift the size of the Grand Canyon is not likely to close no matter how many schools they visit together or how often they meet.

Betsy’s spokesperson says she is not anti-public school. She just pours millions into campaigns of state and local candidates who support charters and vouchers, not public schools.

This effort to find common ground between polar opposites strikes me as pointless. It would be like bringing a devout Orthodox Jew to a Roman Catholic Church in hopes of changing his mind, or bringing a devout Roman Catholic to a synagogue and expecting to find common ground. Or hoping that a Bosox fan would be converted by a visit to the Yankees’ dugout. C’mon!

The New York Times’ account has this perceptive comment:

“Van Wert educators said they believed their biggest threat was school choice. An expanded voucher program would be “potentially catastrophic” for the district’s finances, said Mike Ruen, the district’s treasurer.
About 400 students now take advantage of a state open-enrollment policy, which Ms. DeVos endorsed during her visit. It allows students to attend an out-of-district school and take $6,000 in state per-pupil funding with them.
Most of them attend schools in a neighboring suburb. About 20 students are enrolled in an online charter school that has a 39 percent graduation rate. And a local vocational school takes 80 percent of the funding for each student who transfers there.

“Only one private school competes directly with Van Wert public schools: a small Catholic elementary school in town that the public school system provides special education services to, mostly at no charge. A Catholic high school 15 miles away is less of a draw, but could become one if parents receive vouchers. “I don’t think people are against choice,” Mr. Amstutz said. “But when you talk about expansion, taking money away from public schools, it gives people heartburn.”

Betsy DeVos will not change her mind about the importance of giving taxpayer dollars to every family to choose a charter school, a religious school, home schooling, a cyber charter, or whatever other option they want. They can even choose a public school. To the extent she is able, she will divert federal funds away from public schools to the other choices. She won’t resist Trump’s deep budget cuts. This visit will not transform her. It will not make her more attentive to the needs of the children in public schools. No doubt, she feels sorry for them because they are in public schools.

Randi will not stop being a union leader because of visiting a non-union charter or voucher school. She won’t stop believing in the importance or value of public schools. She won’t become a supporter of DeVos’s privatization agenda or Trump’s budget cuts.

Sorry, friends, but I don’t see the point of seeking “common ground.” There is none.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Privatization, Religion, School Choice, Separation of church and state, Unions, Virtual Charter Schools, Vouchers

Chester Finn Jr. Calls for an End to Teacher Tenure

By dianeravitch
April 20, 2017 //
41

In this post, Chester (Checker) Finn Jr. questions the need for teacher tenure. Getting rid of tenure, he says, will save money, as it has in higher education, where money is lavished on administrators’ salaries and facilities, but not faculty (except for the Big Names).

He thinks that teacher tenure is a relatively recent invention, copying tenure in higher education. Actually, this is not true. Teachers began fighting for some form of job protection in the early twentieth century, to avoid losing their jobs to the sister, cousin, or daughter of a politician or school board member. In my reading on the history of tenure, I never saw evidence that teachers wanted to copy higher education, which was then a rich man’s institution. They wanted a modicum of job security to protect them from political interference with their work.

Finn also makes the mistake of confusing teacher tenure with “lifetime employment.” That is a common error. Teacher tenure is NOT lifetime employment. It is a guarantee of due process. If a teacher is accused of an inappropriate action or failure to perform his or her duties, they are entitled to a hearing before an impartial arbitrator. Why is that so onerous? Finn likes the current business model, where a deputy of the boss arrives without notice and says clear out your personal possessions, locks your computer, and escorts you to the door.

He thinks it is a good idea that tenure in higher education is waning but never wonders how “contingent faculty” manage to scrape by on a per-course payment that might add up to only $20,000 a year–or less.

“Tenure arrived in K–12 education as a trickle-down from higher ed. Will the demise of tenure follow a similar sequence? Let us earnestly pray for it—for tenure’s negatives today outweigh its positives—but let us not count on it.

“Almost every time I’ve had an off-the-record conversation in recent years with a university provost, they’ve confided that their institutions are phasing tenure out. Sometimes it’s dramatic, especially when prompted by lawmakers, such as the changes underway at the University of Wisconsin in the aftermath of Governor Scott Walker’s 2015 legislative success, and the bills pending in Missouri and Iowa.

“Often, though, the impulse to contain tenure on their campus arises within the institution’s own leadership and takes the form of hiring far fewer tenured or tenure-track faculty and filling vacancies with what the American Association of University Professors terms “contingent” faculty, i.e., non-tenured instructors, clinical professors, adjunct professors, part-timers, or—especially in medical schools—severing tenure from pay such that professors may nominally win tenure but that status carries no right to a salary unless they raise the money themselves from grants, patients, etc.

“This is happening across much of U.S. postsecondary education, and the data show it. Whereas in the mid-1970’s tenured and tenure-track faculty comprised 56 percent of the instructional staff in American higher ed (excluding graduate students that teach undergrads), by 2011 that figure had shrunk to 29 percent. In other words, seven out of ten college instructions were “contingent” employees—and almost three quarters of those were part-timers…

“In the K–12 world, however, tenure remains the norm for public school teachers in the district sector, vouchsafed in most places by state law and big-time politics, as well as local contracts, even in so-called “right to work” states. It may be achieved after as few as three years of classroom experience and be based on nothing more than “satisfactory” evaluations from a novice teacher’s supervisor during that period. Unfortunately, we have ample evidence that such evaluations are nearly always at least “satisfactory,” if not “outstanding.” Although many states and districts made worthy changes to their evaluation practices in response to long-ago-spent Race to the Top dollars, the pushback against those changes has been intense, the methodology usually had flaws (especially when linking student learning to teacher performances), and lots of places have been backing down. One consequence is that it’s still virtually impossible to fire bad tenured teachers.”

Clearly, Checker thought it was a swell idea to fire teachers based on the test scores of their students, even though this approach was criticized by the American Statistical Association and has not succeeded everywhere.

He does not acknowledge the high rate of attrition among teachers, especially new teachers; about 40% leave without being fired. Most leave because the job is harder than they thought, or the working conditions were intolerable.

What Checker doesn’t show is the alleged benefits of eliminating job security. Where is the district or state that has better schools because it eliminated tenure? Why does he think that districts and states will raise salaries if they eliminate tenure? The same political forces (unions) that protect due process also protect teachers’ compensation.

At a time of a growing national teacher shortage, does it make sense to eliminate job security for teachers, the promise that they will not be fired capriciously?

The challenge today is how to recruit, support, and retain teachers. Checker offers no suggestions to answer these needs. He probably would be satisfied with a steady inflow of Teach for America or other temps.

What most parents want is stability. They want experienced teachers who make a career of teaching, not part-timers and temps. Checker has been stuck for decades on how to get rid of teachers. It is time to think anew about making teaching a desirable career, not a lifetime of near-poverty and sacrifice.

What Finn doesn’t

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reform, Teacher Shortage, Teacher Tenure

Kelvin Smythe: When Pooh and Christopher Robin Went Searching for a 21st Century Education

By dianeravitch
April 18, 2017 //
9

Kelvin Smythe is an educator and blogger in New Zealand who left the education system when the ideas of the New Right took over. He has since been a critic and an activist.

A friend Down Under sent me one of his recent writings, in which Winnie-the-Pooh and Piglet and Christopher Robin go searching for a 21st Century Education.

But first a bit about Smythe. He wrote this about his views:

Kelvin Smythe makes a plea for teachers to see behind the commodification of education, the managerialism, the data gathering, the claims of new knowledge, the fads, the array of electronics to what teaching is really about – key interactions between teacher, child, and what is being learnt. He knows that many of his concerns about education, his aspirations for education, his style of writing about them will be dismissed as out-of-date. His claim, though, is that these key interactions are the essence of what teaching should be, and are timeless.

In the story he tells about Pooh and friends, there is this beginning:

Just as they came to the Six Pine Trees, Pooh looked around to see that nobody else was listening, and said in a very solemn voice: ‘Piglet, I have decided something.’

‘What have you decided Pooh?’

‘I have decided to catch a 21st Century Education.’

Piglet asked, ‘But what does a 21st Century Education look like? Then continued thoughtfully: ‘Before looking for something, it is wise to ask someone what you are looking for before you begin looking for it.’

Smith then observes:

We are, it seems, getting ourselves tied in knots about something called 21st century education – before looking for it, as Piglet suggests, it might be wise to find out what we are looking for.

This could be done in respect to how it might differ from what went before, how it might be the same as what went before, how it might be worse than went before, who is supposed to benefit from it, who is calling for it, does it exist, should it exist, what are its aims and, being education, how much is career- or self-serving bollocks.

I intend this posting to be a search for something called a 21st century education.

As part of that I declare my prior understandings about the concept – a concept because there has never been any discussion about something called 20th century education, it was never conceptualised in that way, so why for 21st century education?

The formation and high usage of the concept label suggests powerful forces at work – forces, I suggest, taking control of the present to control the future.

Those active in promoting the concept of 21stcentury education are mostly from political, technology, and business groupings, also some academics: the immediate future they envisage as an extension and intensification of their perception of society and education as they see it now. And in the immediate future, as well as the longer term one, they see computers at the heart of 21st century education, which is fair enough as long as the role of computers is kept in proportion as befits a tool, a gargantuanly important one, but still a tool….

Smythe goes on to write about the dominant philosophy behind the 21st century education hullaballoo.

School education is being pressured to inappropriate purposes by groups who claim a hold on the future and from that hold generate techno-panic to gain advantage in the present.

Another prior understanding is that the inappropriate use of computers for learning has contributed to the decline in primary school education (though well behind the contribution of national standards and the terrible education
autocracy of the education review office).

For all the talk of personalising learning, of building learning around the child, of individualising learning, the mandating question for 21st century education seems to be: how can we build the digital into learning instead of how can we best do the learning? And even further: how can we build schools for digital learning instead of what is best for children’s learning environment? Large open spaces are not the best environment for children’s learning, meaning that in combination with the heavy use of computers to make large open spaces ‘work’, a distinct problem is developing. Computers and large open spaces are being promoted by 21st century advocates as the two key ideas to carry us forward to the education for the 21st century.

I think you will find this an interesting read and will spot the commonalities that we face, in the U.S., Australia, Great Britain, and New Zealand. It is the phenomenon that Finnish educator Pasi Sahlberg calls GERM (the Global Education Reform Movement). Its proponents say that it is sweeping the world, and that the train has left the station. But please notice that educators and children are not on the train. They are on the tracks.

Categories Common Core, Corporate Reform, For-Profit, Global Education Reform Movement (GERM), International, Real Education, Technology, Computers

Florida: Jeb’s Corporate Raiders Attack Public Schools Again

By dianeravitch
April 17, 2017 //
11

Florida has more than 600 charter schools. They open and close like day-lilies. Many operate for profit. The charter industry cannot rest so long as a public school remains undisturbed by the forces of disruption and greed.

A new law has been proposed law to open more opportunities for the industry. It is cynically named “Schools of Hope.” But hope is for the entrepreneurs, not the children.

The Florida House of Representatives passed the law two days ago on a party-line vote. One Democrat called the legislation “Most Children Left Behind”

Behind the new law stands Betsy DeVos’s mentor, Jeb Bush. Jeb will push privatization so long as there remains a public school in Florida, regardless of results.

This letter came from Fund Education Now, a parent group.

Homepage

Status: HB 5105 “Charter School Turnaround Heist/Schools of Hope” passed in the House along strict party lines. No companion in Senate except Sen. Bean’s SB776, which is scheduled to be heard for the first time in committee on Monday, 4/17/17. Please take the time to read and understand the dangerous lie behind HB 5105 and why the Senate must stop it.

Take action now: Urge the Senate to reject Charter ”Schools of Hope” Turnaround language – No on SB776, block inclusion in Budget & “Train Bill”

Politics behind HB 5105:

Thirteen people filled out testimony cards in the House to speak on “Schools of Hope”/HB 5105; the sole proponent was a lobbyist from Jeb’s Foundation for Florida’s Future
Florida legislators chronically move cut scores while ignoring the more important measure of actual learning gains, a practice that deliberately throws schools in and out of A, B, C, D, or F status every year.

Case in point: the controversial “proficiency” language found in HB 773 which, if passed, alters the FSA cut scores again causing the pass rate to fall from 54% to somewhere between 27% and 39%, rapidly increasing the number of “D” and “F” schools, clearly benefiting “Schools of Hope.”

By allowing a “Schools of Hope” to open anywhere in a 5 mile radius from a “D” or “F” public school, legislators are ensuring that entire districts, even affluent areas, will qualify, triggering rapid charter growth.
Codifies a longstanding resentment that for-profit charter developers feel toward public school districts that charters aren’t being allowed to replicate fast enough.

Laws are passed every session to increase unmitigated charter growth.

Right now districts have multiple statutory options to aid in transforming a D or F school, only one of which is the transfer to a for-profit charter operator. Charter lobbyists and folks such as HB 5105 sponsor Manny Diaz, complain that districts don’t pick this option enough.

HB 5105 sweetens the charter pot by forcing districts to select the “transfer to for-profit charter operator” option and eliminating the district managed option entirely.

Send your letters now: Tell the Senate to reject the “Schools of Hope”/Charter Schools Turnaround Heist!

“Schools of Hope” do not ensure success for struggling students:

Students exiting their so-called “D/F” school become part of a large diaspora will be impossible to track to review outcomes, making it unlikely that the success or failure of “Schools of Hope” will ever be known.

The 77,000 students who currently attend D/F-graded public schools (2% of Florida’s 2.75 million public school students) are under zero obligation to attend the “School of Hope” situated within 5 miles of their current school.

“Schools of Hope” are under no obligation to provide transportation

Students who attend their so-called D/F school will be dispersed into the community, free to use the Opportunity Scholarships, Corporate Tax Credit/Private School Vouchers or the state’s liberal open enrollment policy that crosses all districts as well as the “School of Hope.”

Once the for profit charter “School of Hope” accepts the student(s) from the so-called D/F school, which could be as few as 1, they are free to host a lottery for the rest of the community

All the rhetoric about saving kids from so-called “failure factories” is a ruse. Under the “Schools of Hope,” nothing is guaranteed except the exponential growth of charter schools and the deliberate defunding of public district schools.

Triggers multiple ways for districts to lose schools and students, giving voters and parents no voice:

Gives for-profit charter developers access to a $200 million capital slush fund if they are willing to open a so-called “school of hope” within a five mile radius of any “D” or “F” public school, which opens entire districts to charter development.

Immediate transfer of D and F public schools into private, for-profit hands. Districts already have multiple statutory options to aid in transforming a D or F school, only one of which is the transfer to a for-profit charter operator.

Loss of public assets nearly $1 billion per year

Bill takes away district right to manage its own school

Establishes system of “Success” Charter schools that could be designated an independent district with its own taxing authority

Eliminates District managed option
Compresses the time-frame for schools that receive a D or F grade to be handed over to for-profit charter operator

Removes options from school boards for turn-around solutions

Picture of loss:

115 public district schools could be handed over immediately to corporate charter developers

450 additional public schools vulnerable to this charter school heist

77,000 students in those 115 public district schools under immediate takeover threat means the transfer of $555 million dollars to for profit charters per year based on UFTE of $7,420.58.

$200 million capital slush fund per year offered to for-profit charter chains willing to open a so-called “school of hope” within a five mile radius of any D or F public school.

For-profit Charter Chains not interested in struggling students:

Florida charters have demonstrated a chronic disinterest in this population.

Legislators are consumed with labeling children and schools with D or F, but unwilling to walk through the doors to see the remarkable work being done despite chronic underfunding

Charter Chains and legislators disregard the fact that struggling D or F schools face the deep effects of generational poverty that requires greater investment and support not “failure” labels and ridicule.

Charter chains know that struggling students cost more and are “not attractive” to a ‘for-profit” model

Legislators ignore District Success:

A prime example of this is Orange County’s successful Evans High Community School, which is a collaborative effort between the district, UCF and other agencies.

This level of student investment – at least $1M more per year per school – is something no for-profit corporation is willing to justify to its board

Florida has a history of constantly moving cut scores while ignoring the more important measure of actual learning gains, a practice that deliberately throws schools in and out of A, B, C, D, or F status every year.

“Schools of Hope” is based on a lie:

Florida’s A-F Accountability/school grades are based on a false premise since school grades almost always reflect zip code status

Florida’s constantly moving cut scores vs. the more important measure of actual learning gains throws schools in and out of A, B, C, D, or F status every year rendering the grades meaningless

Alters statute to include both D and F schools, exponentially driving up the numbers of schools available for take over

Florida Charter Schools have not lived up to their promises

State has spent $760 million on the building and operation of charter schools since 2000.

Majority of state funding for the construction and renovation of schools goes to charter schools.

U.S. Department of Education found no evidence to support the claims that charter schools ‘save children from “failing schools.”

Research shows that restarting a former public school as a charter school had no significant impact on math or reading test scores, high graduation or college enrollment

In 2016, Florida charter schools closures were the highest in the nation

HB 5105 “Schools of Hope” enticements offered to for-profit charter chains:

Gives for profit operators a $200 million slush fund,

Provides for-profit charter developers with a state tax-payer sponsored revolving loan program

Transfers federal funds meant for district schools to private entities

Forces districts to turn over public school buildings AND requires the school district to maintain them.

Exempts for-profit charter developers from school building codes, taxes, fees and assessments and state procurement laws.

Exempts for-profit charter developers from the current charter law and requirements that they close if they fail.

Exempts for-profit charter developers from the class size limits in our constitution.

Exempts for-profit charter developers from teacher certification requirements

Rescinds district-managed option for turning around struggling schools

Stretching the truth – calling Charter Chains “public”

Parents at Charter Schools have little recourse and must address complaints to a corporate school board whose members may not even live in the state.

For-profit Charter schools are run by corporate operators, are allowed to profit from publicly bonded real estate deals and are governed by separate school boards – all enriched by public dollars.

The 501c3 front door provides cover for a private, exceptionally lucrative for-profit back door charter operators that are exempt from transparency because they are private corporations

Legislators benefit from charter school growth. HB 5105 sponsor, Rep. Diaz, earns his living working for the unaccredited Doral College, which is owned by mega charter school developer Academica, the group that just won the state’s first district charter school takeover located in Jefferson County, The ink isn’t dry on the deal to serve 600 students and already Academica is petitioning the Florida Legislature for an additional $5 Million.

Categories Bush, Jeb, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Florida, For-Profit

Who is the Walton Family Foundation Funding?

By dianeravitch
April 13, 2017 //
42

It is very instructive to scan the long list of organizations that are funded by the Walton Family Foundation. Some will surprise you. Some will not. Here is what we know about this foundation. The Walton Family (beneficiaries of Walmart) is the richest family in America. There are many billionaires in the family. Like Betsy DeVos, they don’t like public education. They don’t like regulation. They love the free market. They don’t like unions. Individual family members have spent millions on political campaigns to support charters and vouchers. The Foundation also supports charters and school choice.

In 2015, the Walton Family Foundation spent $179 million on K-12 education grants. They are in the midst of a pledge to spend $1 billion to open more charters, and they have targeted certain cities for their beneficence (Atlanta, Boston, Camden, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, New York, Oakland, San Antonio and Washington, D.C.) Their goal is to undermine public education by creating a competitive marketplace of choices. They and DeVos are on the same page.

I suggest you scan the list to see which organizations have their hand out for funding from one of the nation’s most anti-public school, anti-union, rightwing foundations.

Here are a few of their grantees:

Black Alliance for Education Options (BAEO), run by Howard Fuller to spread the gospel of school choice: $2.78 million

Brookings Institution (no doubt, to buy the annual report that grades cities on school choice): $242,000

California Charter Schools Association: $5 million

Center for American Progress (theoretically a “centrist Democratic” think tank): $500,000

Charter Fund, Inc. (never heard of this one): $14 million

Chiefs for Change (Jeb Bush’s group): $500,000

College Board (to push Common Core?): $225,000

Colorado League of Charter Schools: $1,050,000

Editorial Projects in Education (Education Week): $70,000

Education Reform Now: $4.2 million

Education Trust, Inc. (supposed a “left-leaning advocacy group”): $359,000

Education Writers Association: $175,000

Educators for Excellence (anti-union teachers, usually from TFA): $925,000

Families for Excellent Schools (hedge fund managers who lobby for charter schools in New York City and Massachusetts): $6.4 million

Foundation for Excellence in Education (Jeb Bush’s organization): $3 million

High Tech High Graduate School of Education (this one stumped me; how can a high school run a graduate school of education?): $780,000

KIPP Foundation: $6.9 million

Leadership for Education Equity Foundation (this is TFA’s political organization that trains TFA to run for office): $5 million

Massachusetts Charter Public School Association (this funding preceded the referendum where the citizens of Massachusetts voted “no mas” to new charters): $850,000

National Public Radio: $1.1 million

National Urban League: $300,000

Pahara Institute: $832,000

Parent Revolution: $500,000

Relay Graduate School of Education (that pseudo-grad school with no professors, just charter teachers): $1 million

Schools That Can Milwaukee (Tough luck, the Working Families Party just swept the school board): $1.6 million

StudentsFirst Institute: $2.8 million

Teach for America (to supply scabs): $8 million

The New York Times: $350,000

Thomas B. Fordham Institute: $700,000

Urban Institute (supposedly an independent think tank in D.C.): $350,000

To be fair, in another part of the grants report, called Special Projects, the Walton Family Foundation donated $112,404 to the Bentonville Public Schools and $25,000 to the Bentonville Public Schools Foundation, in the town where the Waltons are located. Compare that to the $179 million for charters and choice, and you get the picture of what matters most.

Categories Billionaires, Black Alliance for Educational Options, Charter Schools, Chiefs for Change, Common Core, Corporate Reform, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, KIPP Charter Schools, Massachusetts, Media, Privatization, School Choice, StudentsFirst, Teach for America, Walton Foundation

Gayle Green: Corporate School Reform and the Cynical Manipulation of the English Language

By dianeravitch
April 11, 2017 //
22

Gayle Green is a professor of English at Scripps College. She is writing a book about the corporate reform in higher education.

In this article, she describes how corporate reformers have taken guidance from Orwell’s “1984” in their deliberate distortion of language to mask reality.

She writes:

“In this post-truth age that’s done away with facts, George Orwell’s 1984 has soared to the top of the charts. But in the world of public education, it’s been 1984 for quite some time. And we didn’t even need the clumsy apparatus of a totalitarian dictatorship to bring it about. All we needed was some slick PR and smiley corporate faces and a media ready to spit back the buzzwords they’d been fed – failing public schools, no excuses, accountability, choice, access for every child, closing the achievement gap – repeating them so often that they passed for truth.”

In the current dystopian world of public education, the new Secretary of Education is the leading enemy of the nation’s public schools.

DeVos should be no surprise. She is the culmination of nearly two decades of creeping privatization.

“But DeVos should come as no surprise: she is the culmination of the way things have long been headed. No Child Left Behind, signed into law in January 2002, brought to us by George W. Bush and the moneyed interests he represented, arrived in clouds of rhetoric about “access” and “civil rights.” It announced itself as “an act to close the achievement gap with accountability, choice, flexibility, so that no child is left behind.” But this was never about reform or access or leveling the playing field: it was about opening up public education as a market, siphoning off tax dollars to charters and for-profit vendors, shifting public funds from a system that had public oversight and control to private interests. Education was a rich, untapped market with billions of federal dollars there for the taking. Schools, panicked at having their survival based on standardized test scores, invested heavily in testing technology. Multinational testing corporations, publishing companies, ed-tech ventures rushed in with their wares: software for administering tests, test preps, pre-tests, post-tests, tests scoring, lesson plans, teaching modules, assessment devices; entire new industries sprang into being….

“It’s been quite a feat, transforming teachers, who were once our friends and allies, to the enemy. A real sleight of hand, getting the public to trust those altruistic billionaires over those greedy, opportunistic teachers. Trust a billionaire to have the public’s interest at heart – that spin worked so well it landed us with Trump. But in the world of 1984, two plus two equals five: “Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by [the Party’s] philosophy.”

Put kids in front of computers, increase screen time, increase class size – and call it personalized. Depersonalized might be a better word – or perhaps personalised, for Pearsons, the multibillion-dollar transnational corporation that’s siphoned off untold billions of federal money. When teachers protested that students from disadvantaged backgrounds tend not to test well, having not had the benefit of tutors and test-prep programs, GWB said they were making “excuses,” showing “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Yet it’s painfully clear that using test scores to determine the survival of schools only further disadvantages the disadvantaged, and, far from leveling the playing field, tilts it even more. “No excuses” became a mantra of corporate reformers, an excuse for shutting down public schools and moving in with charters, an excuse to ignore poverty and blame teachers for conditions that make teaching impossible – conditions assured by inequities that billionaire reformers have themselves brought about.”

Hundreds of schools have been closed. Thousands of teachers drummed out of their profession. Philadelphia’s Rescue Plan devastated the public schools. Arne Duncan’s Renaissance 2010 came and went with more public schools closed, more children sent to privately managed charter schools. “Choice, choice, choice,” the corporate reformers say, but neglect to mention that the schools make the choices, not the families. The one choice that is off the table is the neighborhood school.

“The confounding of language at its most basic level reduces us to a state of civic catatonia: we can’t think about these issues, let alone discuss them or act against them, when they’ve been so obfuscated, when words have been so twisted.”

The deliberate distortion of language has enabled a corporate coup, the selling out of public education to billionaires and entrepreneurs.

This is an article you can send to your friends who want a short summary of one of the biggest scam of our lifetimes.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Corporate Reformers, Democracy, Education Industry, Fraud, Hoax, Privatization, School Choice, Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »