Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

Rhode Island state officials gave their permission to triple the enrollment of politically connected no-excuses charter chain Achievement First.

 

As reported here previously, increasing the enrollment of these charters will drain students and millions of dollars from the public schools of Providence.

 

Thousands of children in the Providence public schools will suffer budget cuts so that a much smaller number may enroll in a dual system under private control.

 

The final decision is up to the mayor of Providence, who is also chair of the charter chainboard.

This morning I posted a question written by Doug1943, rehashing corporate reformer arguments about “allowing children to escape failing public schools.” I invited readers to answer his question(s).

 

Peter Greene put his answer into a post. 

 

This should satisfy Doug (or not), and this is only an introduction to the rest of the post where Doug will find answers:

 

Most public ed advocates that I know and interact with would agree that, particularly in some large urban districts, there are some schools with serious problems. I would never tell you that all public schools are flawless and there are no huge problems. There are, from serious underfunding to long-standing institutional racism to a lack of any sort of vision from leaders. There are absolutely some serious issues, but it does not appear to me that choice-charter-voucher advocates are proposing anything that will actually solve any of the problems.

 

They call to mind lying with a broken leg on the sidewalk, and someone runs up with a chain saw and says, “Hey, I’m going to take off your arms” and I ask what help that will be and are they even a doctor and they reply, “Well, no– but we have to do something!” No, thanks.

 

Do charters generally do a better job? There’s no clear evidence that they do– often they get the same results with the same kids (as far as we can tell, given that we have no good way in place to measure school success– your reservations about standardized tests are on point) and a little too often they do worse. Do charters solve poverty? No. Do charters and choice spur competition that leads to greatness? There’s zero evidence that they do. Do they allow children to “escape” bad schools? Maybe– but here’s the big problem as charters are currently handled: the escape comes at the cost of making a bad school worse by stripping it of resources. And as I frequently point out, the free market can’t handle this problem. The free market survives by picking winners and losers and dropping the losers out– there is not one single business or business sector in this country that serves every single citizen, but serving 100% of US students is exactly the education gig.

 

So in short, yes, there are problems and no, the charter-choice-voucher idea doesn’t solve any of them.

 

So what are my alternative suggestions? Let me first note that the guy who wants to treat my broken leg by chainsawing off my arms is the person carrying the burden of proof. But as someone who is invested in public education, and who has already noticed most of the issues that charter fans holler about in their marketing materials. In the interests of not writing an entire book, let me offer just a quick list of some major steps that, I believe, would help.

 

Sue Legg is a retired educator who now directs the education program of the Florida League of Women Voters.  The LWV has been very critical of the privatization movement in Florida, documenting the scams, frauds, conflicts of interest, and harm to public education.

 

Legg says that opponents of privatization must strategize and develop their own public relations ideas.

 

She writes:

 

“I am working on a set of ‘headlines’ and slogans that communicate the immediacy of the need to preserve our public schools. What do we value about our public schools? What are the threats to public education? Which solutions do we propose?

“Can we come up with short, single sentences that encapsulate a need or something you value. Then we can refer people to more in depth analyses and ways to respond.

“Let’s see:

“Vouchers segregate, not integrate schools.
Vouches for the poor pay for poor quality schools.
Vouchers help the rich get richer.
Private schools get public money with no strings attached.
OR

 

Public schools innovate, charters stagnate.
Public schools invite students in; charters counsel them out.
Charters profit from students; public schools invest in them.
When housing patterns limit access to quality education, fix it!
OR

School choice means all schools are under funded.
Teaching, not testing helps students learn.
We need more time, not more testing.
School choice is a distraction not an option to improve learning.
“You get the idea. Send me your captions and communication strategies. We will hone them and use them to target issues. We will discuss these at the League’s Orlando leadership conference in January.”

 

Make your suggestions here, and I will be sure Sue gets them.

 

 

 

This is a very interesting article that appeared in the New York Times. It was written by Stanley Greenberg and Anna Greenberg. He, I recall, was a pollster and advisor to Bill Clinton.

 

They credit Obama with major accomplishments, but note that over 1,000 Democrats list office during his two terms, and Republicans took control of most states. His personal popularity did not help his party. Now Republicans will control the White House and both houses of Congress.

 

One of his great errors, they write, was neglecting his base.  As Republicans passed anti-union laws, Ibama remained silent.

 

The Greenbergs fail to mention that Obama s major effort in education was an extension of the GW Bush program of test and punish. Teachers, always an important part of the Democratic base, were repeated assailed as incompetent by Arne Duncan and alienated by his insistence on high stakes testing. Duncan and RTTT promoted privatization, worked closely with reformers like Jeb Bush noted for their hostility to public schools, sent millions to TFA to undermine the profession, and turned the Department of Education into a marketing arm of the education industry.

 

 

 

 

Steven Singer writes that at the heart of the school choice is selfishness: me first, and to heck with everybody else.

 

The public schools were created for everyone in the community. They are subject to democratic control. They are free. If you don’t want to go to the public school, you can go to a private or religious school, but your family must pay tuition.

 

The school choice movement wants everyone to choose among public schools, charter schools, and voucher schools. Whenever children leave the public school, the public money follows them. But the public school must still operate its facilities, and it must adapt to the loss of enrollment by laying off teachers, cutting programs, eliminating electives, and reducing the quality of education available to most children. School choice harms the majority of students, so that a few may leave for charters or voucher schools. As school choice grows, the public schools wither.

 

There is nothing so compelling in the research to show that this is a good tradeoff. Vouchers have a shoddy record. Charters are the luck of the draw; some get high scores by demanding strict discipline, some are no better than the local public schools, some are far worse. Why destroy the quality of the community’s public schools to open charters of dubious quality and to send children to religious schools at public expense?

 

Yet this is what Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump plan to do.

 

This is a risky scheme, that puts an essential democratic institution at risk.

 

Singer writes:

 

Though the media would have you believe otherwise, traditional public schools do a much better job of educating children than charter or voucher schools. Some choice schools have better outcomes, but the majority do no better and often much worse than traditional public schools. Moreover, children who continually move from school-to-school regardless of its type almost always suffer academically.

 

So when parents engage in these choice schemes, they often end up hurting their own children. The chances of children benefiting from charter or voucher schools is minimal.

 

It is worth noting that the world’s highest performing nations have strong and equitable public schools, not charters or vouchers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The elected board of the Patchogue-Medford School District on Long Island in New York adopted the following resolution at its December meeting:

 

 

 

Whereas, the Board of Education of the Patchogue-Medford School District has been elected by the residents of the Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District to determine policy and approve programming for the students of the district, within the confines of both federal and state statutes governing education, and

 

Whereas, this Board of Education, on many occasions, has expressed its displeasure with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act, as well as the implementation of the Common Core and Annual Professional Performance Review and the high stakes testing which accompany these mandates, and

 

 

Whereas, the Board of Education wants all of our students, regardless of ability, background, race, or gender, to feel secure, focusing on the physical, social, emotional, cognitive, and relational growth of our students, and

 

Whereas, President-Elect Trump has called for the nomination of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education of the United States, a candidate apparently lacking any credentials as an educator, experience in the administration and management of public schools, demonstrating a pre-disposition towards and long-history of support for charter schools and school voucher programs, which by their very nature eviscerate free and appropriate public education for specific economic, social and racial groups, and

 

Whereas, Ms. DeVos has been at the forefront of the establishment of the Detroit charter school initiative, by all accounts an abject failure which hurt students and enriched the coffers of private companies, therefore be it

 
Resolved, that the Patchogue-Medford Board of Education hereby, based on this record, opposes the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education, and until such time as the incoming Trump administration presents a formal vision for the future of public education in the United States of America

 

and will continue to oppose such a nomination, and calls upon the incoming United States Senate to stand firm by opposing this nominee and affirming this serious need, and be it further

 
Resolved, that the Board of Education invites the president-elect, the nominee for secretary of education or representatives of the incoming education team to meet with them to conduct a forthright and meaningful discussion about the future of public education and their strategies to affect the necessary changes.

Carol Burris wrote an article that was published on Valerie Strauss’s blog, in which she explains that charters are the leading edge of the privatization movement. Corporate education reformers are scrambling to make a distinction between charters and vouchers, but the reality is that charters clear a path for vouchers. Once you sell the public on the idea of school choice, it is increasingly difficult to say that parents may choose a corporate charter chain but can’t choose a religious school. Once you erode the principle of public education as a public good, open to all, responsible for all who enroll, you turn citizens into consumers. Whether they choose a charter or a voucher, their choice diverts public money away from public schools. Jeb Bush argued in his 2012 speech at the Republican National Convention that parents should be able to choose their child’s school the same way they choose a carton of milk at the supermarket: whole milk? 2%? 1? Fat-free? Chocolate? Buttermilk? That is actually a ridiculous argument, because a parent doesn’t reach into a case and select a school. Choices are constrained by geography and transportation. A parent may choose the best private school in town, but the school is unlikely to accept voucher students, and the state voucher won’t cover the tuition. A voucher will in fact cover the tuition only for a religious school that is unlikely to have certified teachers or any of the educational riches of the school that costs $50,000 a year.

 

Charters are no better than vouchers. They are part of the same universe of “school choice” that Trump and DeVos are selling. In DeVos’s Michigan, 80% of the charters operate for profit. Detroit is awash in charters, yet Detroit is the lowest-performing urban district on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. State legislation may call them “public,” but there is nothing “public” about charter schools except their funding. They have private boards; many are allowed to hire substantial numbers of uncertified teachers. If their goal is high test scores, they select their students carefully to reach their goal.

 

Burris writes:

 

During the past 60 years, public education has been the frog in the pot of water, as school privatizers and “education reformers” have slowly turned up the heat. Over 1 million students receive a taxpayer-funded voucher to attend a private school, and close to 3 million attend charters schools. Whether the adjective “public” is in front of the word “charter” or not, charters are at the forefront of school privatization.

 

Opening a charter is akin to opening your own business — but the cost and risk are fully funded by the taxpayers. In most states, taxpayer dollars provide the initial “investment.” This is an odd business model in which the corporation gets income for every customer who walks through the door, regardless of the individual ability to pay. And if the business fails, “owners” are not out a dime, but the customers, who are in this case children, are stranded.

 

It is remarkable that the American public has allowed such risk-free, taxpayer-funded entrepreneurship to occur.

 

If you think that publicly funded, largely unregulated businesses would be ripe for shady deals, oversized compensation and outright fraud, you would be right.

 

In September of 2016, the Inspector General’s Office of the U.S. Education Department issued its final audit report titled a “Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations.” The report assessed “the current and emerging risk” that is posed by charter management organizations for fraud, waste and abuse.

 

The audited period was less than two years — between late 2011 and the early months of 2013. Thirty-three charters in six states were selected for review. Of the 33, the department found that 22 lacked the necessary internal controls, resulting in a significant risk to Education Department funds. The report also made it clear that the Education Department itself is not doing enough to protect taxpayers from charter management fraud. (The present secretary, John King, led one of the top five charter chains, Uncommon Schools.)

 

Burris cites a small sample of the many charter school frauds and scandals that have emerged in recent years. Misappropriation of funds is not surprising in a sector that receives public funding with little or no supervision or oversight.

 

She writes:

 

What will the future hold under DeVos, who believes that “the more of a ‘marketplace’ we have for education, the more, I think, the better”?
Will we have more charter schools with entanglements with foreign governments? Will we have taxpayer-funded charter schools run by white supremacists? Will vouchers go to schools run by jihadists? Will fraud and abuse escalate? These are serious questions to ponder when the marketplace is the only regulator of school choice.

 

Donald Trump claims our public schools run by locally elected boards of education are “government schools” that fit better with the old Soviet Union. I wonder whether he has thought through his alternative. Freewheeling, government-funded schools, unaccountable to the taxpayers, sound awfully more dangerous to me.

 

 

Peter Greene listened to Betsy DeVos speak about how terrible public schools are, and he goes through each of her inconvenient truths.

 

Two observations:

 

1. She should have described her talk as “inconvenient opinions” since none of what she says is true.

 

2. With all her carping about the public schools, she sounds eerily like Arne a Duncan. He is taller than her.

 

She pines Ned for the days when American students were #1 on international tests but as I explained many times, here and in a chapter in “Reign of Error.” We were never number 1 on the international tests. When they started in 1964, we were last. But in the more than half century since then, we have surpassed all the nations with higher scores by every dimension.

 

On the other hand, there is no evidence whatever for privatizing our schools.

The Republican chair of the North Carolina State Board of Education said that the legislature’s act to hand its powers over to the newly elected state superintendent was probably unconstitutional. The state board is deciding whether to sue. Apparently some conservatives were angry because the state board turned down some charter applications. But the state board chair Bill Corey said they were just doing their job and protecting public money.

 

The decision to strip the state board of  most of its powers was a quickie proposal, enacted without deliberations or hearings, as part of the Republicans’ strategy of taking away the powers of the newly elected Democratic governor.

 

“I don’t want to pass judgment on the governor,” said Cobey, a Republican appointee of McCrory. “But it’s still unconstitutional in my opinion.”

 

Cobey is one of at least two Republican appointees on the state’s leading public school board to take issue with the GOP-led House Bill 17, which not only impacts Cooper but wrests powers from the State Board of Education and hands them over to incoming N.C. Superintendent of Public Instruction Mark Johnson.

 

The sweeping legislation was filed and speedily approved with little public vetting in a surprise special session of the legislature last week, called shortly after lawmakers wrapped work on a hurricane relief bill.
– See more at: http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2016/12/19/governor-signs-controversial-bill-state-board-education-chair-condemns-new-law-unconstitutional/#sthash.lJPP1vlx.q3uT8oyu.dpuf

 

Meanwhile, the new superintendent of the state’s schools, a 33-year-old lawyer who had two years in the classroom as a TFA recruit, said he supported the controversial bill that gave him many of the powers of the state board, including the power to approve new charters and control of the new “achievement school district,” modeled on the one that failed in Tennessee.

 

The state board plans to meet again to review its options.

Peter Greene here debates a libertarian proponent of school choice–on his blog, not in person.

 

The debate typically begins with the undocumented assertion that public schools are failing. This is a standby of the  school choice crowd. I demolished that particular claim in my last book, “Reign of Error.” The public schools are actually performing (if you mean test scores and graduation rates) better than ever, and in affluent districts, they are doing a great job.

 

Greene uses the shaky claims for choice as an opportunity to knock them down, one by one. No, educators don’t need to be “incentivized” by competition. No, choice does not “empower” parents. It enables schools to choose the students they want and reject the ones they don’t. It’s most certain result is hypersegregation. By Race, religion, and social class. That’s why “school choice” was the rallying cry of southern segregationists in the 1950s and early 1960s.

 

He doesn’t mention the fact that none of the highest performing nations in the world have adopted school choice.