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

Mother Jones: Why Did Trump and DeVos Choose Florida as Their National Model for School Reform?

By dianeravitch
March 7, 2017 //
8

Kristina Rizga, the veteran education journalist at Mother Jones, explains why Trump and DeVos love Florida. Although the state has a constitutional ban on the use of public money for private and religious schools, although the state’s voters rejected Jeb Bush’s effort to change the state constitution in 2012, Florida has figured out numerous DeVious ways to circumvent the state constitution and the will of the voters.

Jeb Bush is the permanent state minister of education in Florida, and he loves school choice. He does not like public schools. The state has hundreds of charter schools, many of which are managed by for-profit entrepreneurs. The head of the education appropriations committee in the state senate is a member of a family that owns the state’s largest for-profit charter chain. But better yet, for the purposes of DeVos, who is a religious zealot, Florida has a tax-credit plan that funnels hundreds of millions of dollars to unregulated and unaccountable religious schools.

Rizga writes:

Tax credit scholarships provide a crafty mechanism to get around these obstacles. Tax credits are given to individuals and corporations that donate money to scholarship-granting institutions; if parents end up using those scholarships to send their kids to religious schools—and 79 percent of students in private schools are taught by institutions affiliated with churches—the government technically is not transferring taxpayer money directly to religious organizations.

While DeVos is best known as an advocate of vouchers, most veteran Beltway insiders told me that a federal voucher program is very unlikely. “Democrats don’t like vouchers. Republicans don’t like federal programs, and would rather leave major school reform decisions up to states and local communities,” Rick Hess, a veteran education policy expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute said. “Realistically, nobody thinks they’ve got the votes to do a federal school choice law, especially in the Senate.”

This political reality is perhaps why Trump and DeVos are singling out Florida’s tax credit programs as a way to expand private schooling options. While Trump and DeVos have not specified what shape this policy might take at the federal level, most of these changes will come from the state legislators. Republicans have full control of the executive and legislative branches in 25 states, and control the governor’s house or the state legislature in 44 states. At least 14 states have already proposed bills in this legislative session that would expand some form of vouchers or tax credit scholarships, according to a Center for American Progress analysis. (And 17 states already provide some form of tax credit scholarships, according to EdChoice.)

This perfect storm for pushing through various voucher schemes comes at a time when the results on the outcomes of these programs “are the worst in the history of the field,” according to New America researcher Kevin Carey, who analyzed the results in a recent New York Times article. Until about two years ago, most studies on vouchers produced mixed results, with some showing slight increases in test scores or graduation rates for students using them. But the most recent research has not been good, according to Carey: A 2016 study, funded by the pro-voucher Walton Family Foundation and conducted by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, found that students who used vouchers in a large Ohio program “have fared worse academically compared to their closely matched peers attending public schools.”

Businesses make gifts to Step Up for Students. They get a tax credit. Step Up for Students gets a hefty cut of the take. It currently has about $500 million to use to fund vouchers for private and religious schools that the state does not regulate or supervise. The voucher-receiving schools report attendance, but are not subject to the state standards, curriculum, or tests, and they do not report on academic performance.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Florida, Privatization, School Choice, Testing, Vouchers

Peter Greene: Corporate Reformers Launch Three New Websites

By dianeravitch
March 6, 2017 //
23

Are you missing Arne Duncan and John King? There are some nostalgia websites created just for you.

Just in case you don’t have enough to do, Peter Greene tells us about three new education-related websites launched by corporate reformers. Remember the good old days of Race to the Top, VAM, teacher-bashing, Central Falls, and lectures about bad teachers?

They are preserved on these websites.

One is called “FutureEd,” which Greene describes as a “new website with an old voice.” I love his illustration.

He writes:

There’s a new education reform website on the scene, another “new voice” representing a new thinky tank, slick and pretty and well-endowed and charter-friendly and made out of smooshed-together words. Welcome FutureEd

Much of the pitch is familiar. FutureEd is “grounded on the belief that every student should be effectively prepared for postsecondary learning and that performance-driven education systems have the potential to greatly improve student achievement.” And like all such undertakings, the site is intent on letting us know that they are totally independent and fair and balanced and in no way going to pursue a particular agenda…

If this all feel a little reformy, take a gander at the list of Senior Fellows, which includes Norman Atkins (Relay GSE), Steve Cantrell (formerly Gates Foundation), Marshall S. Smith (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching), and Joanne Weiss (formerly New Schools Ventures Fund and Race to the Top apologist).

And then there’s the list of funders, which includes the Bezos Family Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation.

So if you think this thinky tank does not have a love of charter schools and other reformy features built into its dna, I would ove to sell you a bridge.

There is an article defending the Common Core and its testing. There is one on how great teacher evaluation is going.

And the topper is an article knocking me for things I never wrote. As Greene points out, no one agrees with me all the time, and as I often say, I often don’t agree with me, and publicly don’t agree with things I wrote years ago. But, hey, take your best shot. I will survive, and furthermore, I will soon hit 30 million page views!

The other new education-related website is called “The Line.” Peter Greene writes that The Line is “Yet Not Another New Voice.”

Greene writes:

Apparently we are in the season of website launches. An outfit called FutureEd has entered the thinky tank and website world with a spirited return to the ed reform greatest hits of yesteryear. Refugees of the Obama education department have launched a website that is… I don’t know. Cementing their legacy? Shaping the narrative? Keeping a bunch of out-of-work pols busy?

And then there’s The Line.

The Line enters the interwebs with the umpty-gazillionth call for reasonable happy voices in the debate “written by education leaders for education leaders, that endeavors to encourage civil discourse and action around the most challenging issues facing K-12 education. Engagement and thoughtful debate isn’t a choice but an imperative to bettering pubic education. Leaders need a forum for the exchange of ideas and information – they’ll find that at TheLineK12.com. ”

Who has gotten a big fat check to make this new, slickly produced call for civil discourse a reality?

John Deasy.

Yes, the John Deasy whose failure as the superintendent of Los Angeles schools was spectacular enough to merit national press attention. Not that his failure there ended his career– his patron Eli Broad hired him for the Broad Faux Academy of You’re A Superintendent Because I Say So. And now the folks at Frontline Education have hired him to editor-in-chief his way through this operation.

The Line promises “an editorial advisory board of diverse backgrounds, politics and opinions” and it is true that the board runs the entire reform gamut from A to B. The group includes Andres Antonio Alonso (Havard GSE), Tommy Chang (Supt. Boston Schools), Charlotte Danielson (yes, that one), William R. Hite (Supt. Philadelphia Schools), Vicki Phillips , (calling herself an “education strategist” these days), Andrew Rotherham (Bellwether Partners), Frederic Hess (American Enterprise Institute), Paul Toner (Exec Dir, Teach Plus MA), and Tom Boasberg (Supt. Denver Schools). There are several Chiefs for Change, several Broad graduates, several consultants, some Harvard GSE grads, and some charter folks.

Greene summarizes the high and low points of the first appearance of The Line.

And he concludes:

The “issue” wraps up with Deasy waxing rhapsodic further on civil discourse in language that, like much of the site, seems as if it’s been tied to the rack and interrogated with extreme prejudice. Here’s a pull quote, presumably what they consider an exemplar of the site’s style:

“To bridge divide, I believe we must become more proximate to those we differ with cloaked in the very act of civil discourse.”

Sure.

We’ve wondered for a few years what would happen to reformsters when they approached the autumn of their careers. Apparently at least part of the answer is that they get together on websites where they play their greatest hits, like over-aged rock bands traveling the county fair circuit.

The third website is dedicated to the heroic adventures of Arne Duncan and John King. Remember them? Their website is called Education 44, to remind you of the good old days when the U.S. Department of Education was telling everyone how to fix their schools and how productive it was to fire principals and teachers, and close their schools for good. O the good old days!

Nobody tells it better than Peter Greene!

That’s right– a bunch of USED refugees have created a website as a monument to eight years of.. well, we’ll get to that. Of all these sites, Education44 most explicitly promises to keep its eyes on the rear-view mirror of education policy:

Under President Obama – the 44th President of the United States – the U.S. Department of Education worked to make America’s promise attainable for more students. The administration’s agenda focused on protecting access to a high-quality education for all students while reforming and innovating public education to produce greater equity.

Here you will find the legacy of the Obama administration’s work, and a balanced platform where you can learn about policies and ideas for improving public education.

That link takes you to our first legacy document– John King’s exit memo that attempts to sum up the many accomplishments of the Obama-Duncan-King Ed Department. Those missions that have been accomplished are:

1) Greater access to pre-school and more high school grads. Are the pre-schools any good? Did schools fudge numbers to get more “grads.” Oh, let’s just not talk about that.

2) Higher standards and better assessments. Oh, honey. Trying to take credit for Common Core without saying its name is ballsy, but dumb. Those standards were craptastic, and we’ll be years trying to undo the damage. And no– the assessments aren’t better, and the administration’s insistence on placing the Big Standardized Test at the center of the educational system will long stand as one of the most destructive, toxic, and foolish legacies of the administration.

3) More personalized learning through technology. Well, at least they admit that’s what they’ve been up to. It is a dead end–and an expensive one– so thanks, Obama, for that special gift.

4) Historic investments in higher education. Yeah available loans were increased, allowing even more students to go into debt. Hooray?

5) Early learning. Here they brag about the grants used to extend all of their bad educational ideas (standardization, test-driven ed, computer-based instruction) down to the 0-5 year old crowd. Admit it– you guys have no idea whether any of that resulted in actual learning or not. All we can be sure of is that it warped a lot of small children’s childhood while getting them a good head start on having their digital privacy violated.

6) Opportunity and success. This is super-vague, but I gather that they are pleased with ESSA (despite its punch-in-the-face to their department) and also, they are serving the hell out of underserved students. Somehow.

7) Innovation and evidence of what works in education. They have gathered evidence from grant-spurred programs that provide evidence of the evidence-based approach to education that really works, because they have evidence. Somewhere. Honest.

8) Support for education and the teaching profession. Oh, please. The last eight years were just as hostile to teachers and public education as any other years ever (with the possible exception of the next four years). You treated us like the problem, ignored our voices, and drove us out of the current and future profession. The department tries to get applause for its ambassador fellowship program that accomplished jack. Okay, not quite true– it made the department pat itself on the back for allowing a handful of teachers to come pretend to be listened to. Meanwhile, the department claims that we were all clamoring for better feedback on professional development. Incredibly, King gives them credit for pursuing the program of finding great teachers and moving them around to needy schools, a policy idea that never, ever actually happened anywhere (which is good, because it was a dumb idea). They would also like credit for “helping” the profession by meddling in college teacher prep programs. Dammit you guys– you were never our friends, ever.

9) Strong students support. Here’s a list of some grant programs. Whoop-de-doo.

10) Protection of student civil rights. It was one of their more creative approaches to strong-arming state and local ed leaders. Of course, in Trumpistan, there will be no such activity.

11) College affordability. Well, the department made a big fat ton of money on college loans, but I don’t think that much helped people who wanted to go to college.

Too darn bad that Race to the Top expended all of its $5 billion and left nothing behind. Not even a line in the sand. Nothing. And then there was that sad evaluation from the U.S. Department of Education that concluded that the $5 billion accomplished nothing at all. But let’s not talk about that. How we miss Arne and his regular lectures about how terrible our public schools are, how bad our teachers are, how dumb our students are, how awesome charter schools are, how everyone should be fired and replaced. O, Arne, we hardly knew ye.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Common Core, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization, Testing

When Jennifer Berkshire (AKA EduShyster) Met Lisa Alva, Candidate for LAUSD School Board

By dianeravitch
March 5, 2017 //
8

The election for the Los Angeles USD school board is Tuesday. Once again, the charter industry is trying to buy control of the school board. Once again, the charter billionaires are dumping obscene amounts of money into the races in different districts.

In District 2, Charter QueenPin Monica Garcia is facing tough competition from two strong opponents: parent Carl Petersen and teacher Lisa Alva. If Garcia does not get 51% of the vote, there will be a runoff.

The Network for Public Action Fund has endorsed both Petersen and Alva, hoping to force a runoff and ready to back Garcia’s opponent. Garcia has never seen a charter she didn’t love or a public school that she did.

Jennifer Berkshire (the writer formerly known as EduShyster) describes her meeting with Lisa Alva. Alva is interesting because she was deeply embedded in the reform movement and then had an “aha!” moment (much like my own). She realized that “reform” was not about the kids. She was a teacher and she is about the kids. Alva won the endorsement of the Los Angeles Times, which usually sides with charterites.

Berkshire writes:

In the endorsement that Alva scored from the LA Times, she’s described as espousing an “interesting mix of beliefs, including some that align with the school reform movement and others more in line with the positions of the teachers unions.” I’d put it a different way. Alva thinks teachers deserve to have more of a voice, in part to push back against misguided reform policies, like the botched experiment that played out at Roosevelt High School. In 2010, Roosevelt was broken up into seven small schools, each with its own principal and schedule, which created some, um, logistical challenges for a high school with thousands of students. “It was this microcosm of bad policy and bad decision making,” says Alva.

By 2013, five of Roosevelt’s small schools had been re-combined—the only way that the school could remain viable, said Marshall Tuck, then CEO of the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, which took over the school in 2008. “He basically said ‘I guess we made a mistake,’” recalls Alva. Tuck is long gone; he ran for state superintendent in California as the charter guy in 2014 and lost. He’s currently accelerating the effectiveness of new teachers here. As for Roosevelt High, well, let’s just say that the patient has yet to recover. The money to pay all of those new administrative salaries had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere was classes, services for students and whole programs, like the one that trained students for careers in culinary arts. The small schools model was effective in making Roosevelt smaller; enrollment has plummeted since the Partnership assumed control of the school.

What makes Alva’s emergence as a thorn in the side of Tuck et al is that she was once an #edreform insider herself. She was a member of the Partnership’s Board of Directors, as well as a TeachPlus fellow, and a member of the teaching advisory board for Educators for Excellence, as well as Teachers for a New Unionism. She was, in other words, the reformer’s dream version of what a teacher should be: seeking out leadership opportunities and steadily improving herself in order to [insert aspirational goals here]. But Alva’s romance with the reform movement ended dramatically in 2013 over an incident that she recounted publicly here. In short, she was deeply disturbed by how quickly the alphabet-soup’s assembly of reform organizations in LA pivoted away from their self-proclaimed mission(s) to rally support for embattled superintendent John Deasy. Alva broke up with education reform, a decision she explained in a single, satisfying sentence: “The best place for an educator to protect and promote public education is the teachers union.”

Categories Broad Foundation, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Los Angeles, Privatization

ALERT: Save Kentucky’s Public Schools!

By dianeravitch
March 5, 2017 //
16

NPE Action urges you to write a letter to state senators in Kentucky. Please read about the harm that this bill will do to the public schools.

The bill now moves to the Kentucky state senate. Many, perhaps most, of the senators represent rural districts, where the public school is the heart of the community. They should oppose this law, as charters will take resources out of their public schools and harm the children of their community. Urban public schools will have larger classes and will have larger proportions of the students rejected by the charters, those whose needs are greatest.

As the bill is now written, it has many terrible features. Charter schools will not be required to have certified teachers. There is no limit on the number of charters that may open. The bill allows for-profit EMOs. There is no mention of how charters will be funded or how much funding they will receive. In other words, the bill will open the door to charter entrepreneurs to open shop in Kentucky and drain public funds to pay their investors.

The children of Kentucky will lose if this bill passes.

Citizens of Kentucky, I urge you to contact your state senator and urge him or her to save Kentucky’s community public schools.

Insist that every school be staffed with certified teachers. Keep out the profiteers.

Support the public schools that accept all children, not the schools that accept only the ones they want. Support the public schools that are legally required to enroll and provide services to children with disabilities. Do not authorize schools that choose their students and kick out the ones with low test scores.

A few years ago, I spoke to the Kentucky School Boards Association, and the walls were festooned with children’s artwork celebrating the public schools in every district.

Don’t betray the children or their public schools.

Stop privatization before it is too late. If this bill passes, the legislature will focus entirely on charter schools; legislative hearings will be packed with cute children wearing matching tee-shirts, pleading for more money for their sponsor. Public schools will be forgotten.

Don’t let it happen!

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Kentucky, Privatization, Resistance

Kentucky: We Don’t Want Charter Vultures in Our State!

By dianeravitch
March 5, 2017 //
1

Gay Adelman of Save Our Schools Kentucky published the following letter to the editor in the Louisville Courier-Journal:

“Kentucky is one of only seven states that has managed to avoid jumping off the charter school cliff, so far. However, our state legislature is poised to pass a charter school bill this month. As a parent volunteer and staunch advocate for public schools, everyone keeps telling me I should “just deal with it.”

“If you knew what I knew about the real challenges our public schools face, some of the 100-plus other solutions we should try before opening our pocketbooks to outside interests, and the corruption and self-dealing going on behind this movement, you would not “just deal with it” either. You would fight until there was not an ounce of fight left, and then you would fight some more.

“Research shows that if Kentucky passes harmful charter school legislation this month, our already struggling schools and our most vulnerable students will suffer. Our democracy will suffer. All of the gains and momentum currently underway in our public schools will fall right off that cliff, as well.

“Charters are funded by our tax dollars meant for our public schools, but they are run by outside corporate interests and authorized by entities outside the purview of our democratically elected school board. By opening the door to charters, our already underfunded public schools will become destitute. They will end up serving the neediest of our population, begging for scraps, and exacerbating the extreme poverty, segregation and discrimination we already have in this city.

“Shameful agendas

“For some, charters are a dog whistle for those looking to resegregate schools, to discriminate against LGBTQ policies, to strip rights and services away from special needs students, and to bring religion into schools. Others see them as a way to isolate their children from students dealing with poverty, trauma and behavior issues.

“Paid pro-charter policymakers have been coming after our volunteers, attempting to convolute or discredit our concerns. Lawmakers, pushing out-of-touch education bills, have blocked their own constituents from commenting on their social media posts. Soccer moms, teachers and students are routinely ignored or bullied by grown men who often don’t even have experience (or kids) in the public school system.

“In actuality, Kentucky public schools are improving. But the oft-hailed idea that charters are a “lifeboat” implies that the system is sinking. Charter advocates would rather jump ship and save a few than plug the hole and save all. The charter lifeboats will only save those students whose parents know how to navigate the system (which are not the kids that charters purport to help) leaving the existing schools more broken than before.

“Charter schools are a slippery slope.

“Look at what’s happened in the 43 states, plus DC, where charter school operators have run amok. Like locusts, they ravage communities, taking their inexpensive-to-educate, high-performing students. Once they’ve locked their jaws onto our succulent recurring, AAA-rated tax dollars, they move on to their next most lucrative, vulnerable target. In a recent interview with Insider Louisville, House Bill 103’s sponsor Phil Moffett said,“The most likely areas that will see charter schools first are Owensboro, Bowling Green, as well as counties near Cincinnati, Lexington and Louisville.” They’re not even trying to hide it!

“Charter operators will find other ways to suck funds from our public schools, such as vouchers and online schools and multi-county “academies.” This leaves us, the taxpayers, to make up the funding difference and clean up the mess they leave behind.

“Charters don’t work, not even for “urban kids”

“Despite relentless propaganda and cherry-picked “research” financed by wealthy special interests, charter schools don’t produce better students. There is no statistically significant evidence that shows that charters improve outcomes for minority students. In fact, they have been known to hurt urban public schools, often preying on vulnerable, at-risk, low-advocacy students who are desperate for change. The NAACP, Black Lives Matter, and ACLU have recently spoken out against charter schools.

“Charters magnify the divide between the have’s and the have-not’s because students with involved parents – the ones who jump through hoops so their kid can attend a charter school – often outperform those who don’t, leaving the public schools in those communities worse off than before.

“Just look at Detroit. With the recent confirmation of the wholly unqualified, public education enemy, Betsy DeVos, to U.S. Secretary of Education, opposing charter school legislation in Kentucky has become more critical than ever. It may, in fact, be the only hope we still have and protecting our public schools from the devastation that has happened in districts like Detroit, where her failed policies have run rampant.

“Kentucky has been fortunate to be one of the few states to keep vulture charter operators at bay. Let’s not jump off the cliff just because everyone else did. Call your legislators at 800-372-7181 and tell them to #StopChartersInKY.”

Gay Adelmann is co-founder of a grassroots public education advocacy group called Save Our Schools Kentucky. She can be reached at moderator@saveourschoolsky.org.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Kentucky, Privatization, Resistance

Kentucky: House Passes Charter Bill, with Strong Limits

By dianeravitch
March 5, 2017 //
19

Now that Republicans control the Governorship and the Legislature in Kentucky, they finally got a billauthorizing privately run charters through the lower house of the legislature. Kentucky is one of the few states that does not allow charters, or has been until now. In the world of Republican politics, it is important not to be different. One must run with the crowd, even if they are running off a steep cliff. Republicans look enviously to their neighbor Tennessee, which has wasted millions of dollars on charters and performs well below Kentucky on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Why Kentucky wants to emulate a lower-performing state is anyone’s guess. Call them lemmings.

On Friday, the Kentucky House passed House Bill 520 after four hours of debate. The bill would legalize charter schools in the state of Kentucky.

Charter schools are publicly funded but privately run schools.

The bill was introduced in the General Assembly by Representative John Carney, a Republican from Campbellsville. While it does not set a cap on the number of schools, Carney said the state will likely start the program with three to five schools in areas that need them most.

The schools would be approved for five years and the reassessed and renewed for another five years or shut down.

“This should be a bipartisan matter. This is about our kids,” Carney said.

According to Hal Heiner, the Kentucky Education and Workforce Development’s Cabinet Secretary, students do not have proper support systems and that is causing schools to fail.

“We have to add to what we have to meet the needs of children” Hal Heiner, Kentucky Education and Workforce Development Cabinet Secretary said.”We need specialization.”

Heiner said a charter school, which had the ability to provide year-round education and three meals a day to students, can help underprivileged students.

Kentucky is one of seven states without charter school laws.

“Every dollar going to charter school is not going to a public school in that district.” Kentucky Education Association President Stephanie Winkler said. “This bill gives local school boards little room to maneuver.”

Even if a school board rejects an application, which the bill says it can’t do if the application is in order, an applicant can appeal to the state’s school board.

During the meeting, Rep. Phill Moffett (R – Jefferson) added a measure to give a mayor permission to accept a charter application as well.

“We’ve got to stop accepting this stuff and we need to work together to make sure we educate these children better,” Rep. Moffett, a longtime supporter of charter schools said.

Louisville pastor Milton Seymour said the bill helps end achievement gaps in low-end neighborhoods.

This is the civil rights movement of the 21st century,” Seymour said. “If we don’t do something for our children, then shame, shame, shame.”

Achievement gaps exist but charter schools are not the answer according to Winkler. Winkler continued her opposition to the bill by saying that all states with charter schools still have gaps.

“If charter schools were the answer to the student achievement gaps in this state, the professionals that trained to teach children would be advocating for them too,” Winkler said in an emotional speech.

While it is unfortunate to see Kentucky join the parade of failed school reforms by permitting privatization of public school funds, the one bright side is that the bill is very disappointing to corporate reformers. Jeanne Allen of the Center for Education Reform, which has been touting privatization for many years, wrote up her criticism:

The lower house of the Kentucky legislature passed HB520 this afternoon, a bill which in all but isolated cases strengthens the hands of school districts to limit charter schooling in Kentucky.

Applicants wanting to open a charter school in the state will first have to get permission from the district, which experience shows is rarely given in the absence of a swift and binding appeal to the state board of education or multiple chartering authorizers.

While an amendment offered by Representative Phil Moffett adding the Mayors of Louisville and Lexington as authorizers improved the bill, other changes, including a provision barring charters from contracting with businesses to support and manage their schools, and barring online education, made it much worse.

The Kentucky Education Association president opposed even the dramatically scaled back version of the measure. As has been typical elsewhere, Kentucky school boards and superintendents have been lobbying hard against charter schools, and creating fear among rural legislators that charter schools would drain their school funding.

What? No for-profit management! No disastrous cyber charters! A few points of light in an otherwise dismal decision that will defund public schools in Kentucky and NOT help the kids who need excellent teachers and good public schools.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Kentucky, Privatization

Watch the Great Debate: Are Charter Schools Overrated?

By dianeravitch
March 4, 2017 //
12

This is a fun debate to watch, sponsored by Intelligence Squared.

The proposition: Are Charter Schools Overrated?

The debaters:

For the proposition: Julian Vasquez Heilig and Gary Miron. They argue that charter schools are overrated.

Against the proposition: Jeanne Allen and Gerard Robinson. They argue that charter schools are great.

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

DFER Launches Phony Phone Campaign in DC to Promote Common Core and High-Stakes Testing

By dianeravitch
March 4, 2017 //
10

The hedge-fund manager group called Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) is conducting an aggressive telephone campaign in D.C. to promote the Common Core and high-stakes standardized testing. The rhetoric is deceptive, as usual.

Jeffrey Anderson writes in the Washington City Paper:

“In a one-party city with a civic focus on education, an advocacy group like Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) sounds as wholesome as Mom and apple pie. Everyone in D.C. is a Democrat, right? Who isn’t in favor of education reform?

“Aided by such safe assumptions, the New York-based PAC recently injected itself into a complicated school debate when it employed phone banking that connected D.C. residents with their respective school board members.

“Residents around the city received calls on behalf of DFER to tell them that the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) is proposing to “hold schools accountable not only for the academic achievement of students but also for the growth that students make on their achievement at whatever level they start out.”

“Sounds like a winner, right?

“The callers then offered to direct residents to their representative on the D.C. State Board of Education to “let them know you support this proposal.” They then asked, “May I put you through?”

“What the campaign does not tell citizens is that the proposal presents the school board with complex decisions in an ongoing policy debate that is central to a virtual culture war over public education reform in America.

“Nor does it disclose that Democrats for Education Reform is a PAC that raises money from corporations, foundations, and influential philanthropists to back political candidates who favor standardized testing and the Common Core standards—and apparently seeks to directly influence elected school board members on contentious policy issues.

***

“OSSE’s draft plan is based on the federal “Every Student Succeeds Act,” which requires states to create a new school accountability system beyond the standardized math and reading tests of “No Child Left Behind.” The idea of Every Student Succeeds is to provide states with flexibility to also measure performance in science, social science, art, and other indicators of school quality.

“Under the plan DFER is promoting, 80 percent of school accountability for elementary and middle schools is based on standardized tests in reading and math and a complex formula meant to determine student “growth.” (Most of the remainder is based on attendance and re-enrollment.) The accountability system not only rates schools relative to one another but also sets guidelines that will influence educational and administrative priorities.

“Proponents of the plan, such as DFER’s D.C. director Catharine Bellinger, believe that a school rating system should be based on single test scores that reflect performance on college and career-ready exams, such as the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC).”

Here is a safe bet: Not one member of the board of DFER sends their children to a school that is ranked by test scores or uses standardized tests to rank students.

Now that DeVos is leading the national movement for privatization, DFER can concentrate its energies on testing and ranking other people’s children.

Categories Accountability, Common Core, Corporate Reformers, Democrats for Education Reform, District of Columbia, Education Industry, Privatization, Testing

Portland, Oregon: Leader from KIPP-TFA Runs for Portland Public School Board

By dianeravitch
March 4, 2017 //
5

In a hotly contested race, a former principal of a KIPP charter school is running for a seat on the Portland, Oregon, school board. The website of the candidate, Jamila Singleton Munson, does not mention her role in the KIPP corporate chain or the fact that she was chief of staff for Teach for America. Apparently she is still employed by TFA. TFA has a branch–Leaders for Educational Equity–that encourages and funds its personnel to run for office, as part of its plan to dominate state and local school boards.

Munson’s resume demonstrates she’s part of the country’s education-reform movement that generally supports school choice and charter schools as well as the use of test scores to measure acceptability for schools. Teachers unions generally oppose those approaches.

Steve Buel dropped out of the race. Rita Moore is the pro-public school candidate.

http://www.mooreforschools.com

Will Portland elect a public school advocate or an advocate for privatization of its public schools?

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, KIPP Charter Schools, Oregon, Privatization, Teach for America

Peter Dreier: Who Are the Plutocrats Trying to Oust Steve Zimmer?

By dianeravitch
March 3, 2017 //
6

Peter Dreier describes the full assault on Steve Zimmer by the plutocrats. They want control of the Los Angeles school district, and he is in their way. What is their goal? Privatization and profit.

Some of America’s most powerful corporate plutocrats want to take over the Los Angeles school system and Steve Zimmer, a former teacher and feisty school board member, is in their way. So they’ve hired Nick Melvoin to get rid of him. No, he’s not a hired assassin like the kind on The Sopranos. He’s a lawyer who the billionaires picked to defeat Zimmer.

As a result, the race for the District 4 seat — which stretches from the Westside to the West San Fernando Valley — is ground zero in this battle over the corporate take-over of public education. The outcome of next Tuesday’s (March 7) election has national implications in terms of the billionaires’ battle to reconstruct public education in the corporate mold.

The corporate big-wigs are part of an effort that they and the media misleadingly call “school reform.” What they’re really after is not “reform” (improving our schools for the sake of students) but “privatization” (business control of public education). They think public schools should be run like corporations, with teachers as compliant workers, students as products, and the school budget as a source of profitable contracts and subsidies for textbook companies, consultants, and others engaged in the big business of education.

Read more to learn their names. They will be familiar to you.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Los Angeles, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »