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

California Charter Industry Spends BigTime on Elections to Cement Its Power

By dianeravitch
November 12, 2016 //
9

Investigative reporter Bill Raden of Capitol & Main exposes the political machinations of the billionaire-funded charter industry, which wants more kids, more schools, more market share. Enough is never enough.

Expenditures by charter school lobbying groups was near $24 million, pumped into 35 legislative races. The charter industry wants to buy influence to protect its market share.

Raden writes:

California’s “school choice” movement has always benefited from generous subsidies by a narrow spectrum of big-spending entrepreneurs, many of whom are billionaires. Their wealth has helped give the state the highest number of charter schools in the U.S., even as their election largess has left it with the nation’s most expensive school board elections.

Capital & Main’s analysis of the latest campaign-finance records for the five largest charter school IECs reveals that those same personal fortunes are at the center of the charters’ apparent attempt to buy some Sacramento political insurance against a growing resistance among both lawmakers and the public to the industry’s unbridled expansion in the state.
The amount spent by charter IECs represents about $40 for each of California’s 581,100 charter school students, and a 300 percent jump from 2014 charter election spending — about 570 percent over 2012.

Most of the charters’ IE spending (88 percent) was directed by three committees that served as the 501(c)(4) political arms of industry lobbyists California Charter School Association (CCSA) and EdVoice, the charter school advocacy nonprofit founded by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings: CCSA’s California Charter Schools Association Advocates IE Committee, and the Parent Teacher Alliance (sponsored by the CCSA’s IEC); and the EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee. (Neither EdVoice nor CCSA responded to requests to comment for this article.)

The remainder was distributed by the Govern for California Action Committee, a PAC controlled by anti-public-pension gadfly and neoliberal Democrat David Crane; and by Parents and Teachers for Student Success – StudentsFirst, the IEC of the national pro-charter group founded by Michelle Rhee.

“They’re investing heavily in maintaining a deregulated environment,” said United Teachers Los Angeles Secretary Daniel Barnhart before the election. “This really isn’t about kids. In their own words, they say it’s about market share.”
He may be right. Though the teachers union spent nearly $33 million on the election, the bulk of that (around $20 million) went to Proposition 55, the education-funding measure that aimed to benefit all California classrooms — both charter and public school students. The charter IECs spent solely on pro-charter legislative and school board candidates.

The unions spent money to support education, both for public schools and charter schools. The charter industry spent only to protect its future prospects for opening more charters and draining more resources from public schools.

Governor Jerry Brown is the ultimate protector of the charter industry. He vetoed a bill to block the educationally disastrous for-profit online charter industry. And he vetoed other bills to rein in charter abuses.

The industry may have become more aggressive this year because the public is growing wary of its promises, its scandals, and its propaganda. The ACLU issued a blistering report about charters in California, and the NAACP call for a moratorium on charters was a body blow to billionaires who think they are in the forefront of the civil rights movement. They are not.

This greedy, self-absorbed industry has overplayed its hand. The public is catching on. The billionaires will have to spend more to buy more legislative seats to stave off a public uprising against them.

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

Rachel Klein: Don’t Blame Teachers for the Achievement Gap

By dianeravitch
November 12, 2016 //
24

Rachel Klein, the education editor of Huffington Post, reports on a recent study by Mathematica Policy Research that found that teachers and low-income and in upper-income schools are no different in effectiveness.

This study is very important because a central tenet of the corporate reform movement is that “bad teachers” cause low test scores, and that low-scoring schools are overrun by “bad teachers.” We have heard this claim from the mouths of Bill Gates, Arne Duncan, Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, and every other corporate reformer. This is why Race to the Top required every state applying for a share of $4.35 billion in federal funds had to agree to evaluate teachers based in large part on the test scores of their students. Think tanks, states, and the U.S. Department of Education have poured time and energy into the pursuit of the best way to find and fire those “bad teachers.” Another of Arne Duncan’s bad ideas was the “turnaround” model, which involved firing half, or most, or all of the school staff, since in his mind the staff caused low scores.

The study used the “reformers'” favorite methodology–value-added measurement–to look for differences in teacher effectiveness.

Klein writes:

Teachers shouldn’t be held responsible for the big gap in the achievement levels of rich and poor students, new data suggests.

By looking at the effectiveness ratings of teachers who work with students from varying socioeconomic classes, Mathematica Policy Research determined that rich and poor children generally have access to equally impressive educators. The research, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, stands in the face of arguments that a more equitable distribution of teachers could substantially move metrics of educational attainment.

Affluent students outperform their low-income peers on meaningful educational benchmarks. They have higher high school graduation rates and higher standardized test scores. Policymakers have said in the past that teachers might influence this gap. Indeed, previous data shows that low-income students tend to have less access to experienced teachers.

“We know from past research that there is a very large gap in achievement between high- and low-income kids, and we also know some teachers are quite a bit more effective than others,” said Eric Isenberg, senior researcher for Mathematica. “So we were interested in exploring whether there’s a link between those two things ― if achievement gaps could be explained by low-income kids having less effective teacher than high income kids.” .

The study looked at effectiveness ratings for English language arts and math teachers in 26 districts over the course of five years. These teachers worked with students in the fourth through eighth grades.

Researchers used a value-added model to measure the effectiveness of a teacher. This statistical model is controversial in the education world ― Isenberg called it an “imperfect measure,” but he said it’s the best available option. This statistical technique is used to isolate how students’ test scores change from year to year, and how much a teacher is contributing to these changes.

Although researchers did not work with a nationally representative sample of school districts, “the study districts were chosen to be geographically diverse, with at least three districts from each of the four U.S. Census regions,” the report says. About 63 percent of the students in the studied districts qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, and the districts’ achievement gaps tend to reflect those at the national level.

Overall, researchers only found small differences in the average effectiveness ratings given to teachers working with low-income and affluent students. The average teacher of a low-income student rates around the 50th percentile, while the average teacher of a more wealthy student rates around the 51st percentile.

As Linda Darling-Hammond once wrote: “You can’t fire your way to Finland.”

In Finland, teaching is a highly prestigious profession. Entry into teachers’ colleges is very competitive. Teachers must have five years of education before they can teach. Once they are professionals, they have broad autonomy, and they collaborate with their peers to make school wide decisions. There is no standardized testing until the end of high school. There is an emphasis on the arts, play, technology, and collaborate learning. Children have a recess after every class. Teachers are professionals. They are not judged by test scores because there are no test scores.

The policies of the Bush-Obama era have failed and failed and failed. It is time to think anew.

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Teacher Education, Teacher Evaluations, Teachers and Teaching, Testing, VAM (value-added modeling)

Ladd and Fiske Assess England’s Radical Experiment in School Autonomy

By dianeravitch
November 11, 2016 //
3

Helen Ladd, Professor of Public Policy and Economics at Duke University, and her husband Edward Fiske, former education editor of the New York Times, have written a comprehensive review of England’s radical experiment in school autonomy. The United Kingdom has been thrashing around in search of a managerial solution to school problems. It introduced a national curriculum for Schools in England, Wales, Northern Ireland in 1988, defining what every student should know in every grade, soon followed by national tests. (Wales soon delinked from the national curriculum.) Dissatisfied by the results, England is now embarking rapidly on radical decentralization of its schools.

What began as a limited program under a Labor government seeking “third way” reforms to encourage wealthy investors to take charge of some secondary schools has mushroomed under a Conservative government into a full-blown effort to devolve governmental responsibility for most of the nation’s state-run schools.

In their study released by the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Teachers College, Ladd and Fiske assess the prospects and downsides of this approach.

“While the growth of charter schools from two in Minnesota in 1992 to nearly 7,000 across the country today has been stunning, this transformation of the educational landscape in the United States pales in comparison to what has happened in nearly half the time in England.

“Authorized by legislation in 2000 and officially launched in 2002, academies are England’s answer to charter schools. They are former state schools funded by the central government and granted significant operational autonomy. There are now 5,302 academies. Free schools, introduced in 2010, are academies by another name, created by teachers, charities, parents, or religious groups. There are now 304 free schools. The former Conservative prime minister David Cameron and his education secretary, Michael Gove, pledged in March 2016 to make all of England’s 20,000 government-funded schools into academies or free schools to give parents more choice and school administrators more freedom. Their target date for this complete transformation was 2022. Cameron’s successor, Theresa May, and her education secretary, Justine Greening, have so far stood behind this pledge.

“England’s academies and free schools stand out for not only their rapid growth but also their substantial autonomy. While oversubscribed charter schools in the United States must employ lotteries for admission, academies and free schools have control over whom they admit. The result, according to an analysis summarized by The Guardian, has been significant segregation of students by class as well as academic achievement.

“In “England Confronts the Limits of School Autonomy,” Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske provide a detailed analysis of the evolution of school choice in England and address the obstacles in the way of full implementation of Conservative Party ambitions as well as its likely drawbacks. Ladd, a professor of economics and public policy at Duke University, and Fiske, a former education editor at The New York Times, ground their working paper in interviews conducted last spring in London with 24 government officials, school leaders, and researchers; and in numerous government reports and academic studies. The result is a rich depiction of dramatic change and a cautionary statement about the impact of full school independence on community input and student interests.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Corporate Reformers, Inequality, International, Privatization, Testing

EduShyster: How Citizens Defeated the Charter Movement in Massachusetts

By dianeravitch
November 11, 2016 //
31

EduShyster (aka Jennifer Berkshire, a resident of Massachusetts) explains here how a coalition of parents, teachers, students, and civil rights activists defeated Question 2.

Question 2 was a measure on the ballot to expand the number of charter schools in the state by 12 every year, indefinitely. Opponents of the measure said it would drain money from the existing public schools, which enroll 96% of the children in the state. Advocates said it would not. Advocates claimed that they were fighting for opportunity for poor kids to escape failing public schools. Opponents didn’t buy it.

Support for Question 2 came mostly from out-of-state people of great wealth. These people, such as the Waltons and Michael Bloomberg, put up at least $26 million to advocate for more charters. I thought the charter advocates had put up $22 million, but Jonathan Pelto reported yesterday that they had actually spent $26 million. The opposition raised about $12 million, mostly from teachers’ unions and individual small contributions by teachers and parents.

For a billionaire to drop $2 million into a ballot issue in Massachusetts or anywhere else would be akin to one of us sending a dollar to the March of Dimes. They won’t miss it. At some point, however, if they keep losing, they might get bored and find a different hobby.

The election was a battle royal over the future of public education in Massachusetts, and large numbers of people mobilized to save their public schools. Support among black voters was the same as among white voters.

Question 2 was defeated by a vote of 62% to 38%. It was a knock-out punch for the billionaires and the many financiers whose names were hidden from public view because of arcane campaign finance laws that enable “dark money” to be spent without identifying its source.

Berkshire writes:

I could give you a long list of reasons why Question 2 went down in flames. It was a complicated policy question that should never have made it onto the ballot. Yes on 2, despite outspending the ‘no’ camp 2-1 couldn’t find a message that worked, and was never able to counter the single argument that most resonated with voters against charter schools: they take money away from public schools and the kids who attend them. #NoOn2 also tapped into genuinely viral energy. The coalition extended well beyond the teachers unions that funded it, growing to include members of all kinds of unions, as well as social justice and civil rights groups, who fanned out across the state every weekend. By election day, the sprawling network of mostly volunteer canvassers had made contact with more than 1.5 million voters.

Question 2 had not only unprecedented funding, it had the support of the Governor and the state’s Secretary of Education, James Peyser, who is a longtime advocate for charters and a member of the board of Families for Excellent Schools, the same organization that bundled money in New York and elsewhere to push for charters.

Berkshire writes that when people who had no particular interest in charters or public schools began to see who was behind Question 2, she realized that Question 2 was in big trouble:

Do you know why hating on the Yankees is such a popular pastime in Massachusetts? Because they’re regarded as rich, entitled assholes from New York. Which is why the decision to rely so heavily on well, rich, entitled assholes from New York to fund the Yes on 2 campaign puzzles one so. By the final tally before the election, Families for Excellent Schools, reduced to serving as a conduit for the offerings of rich Wall Street-ers, had gifted more than $17 million to the cause. Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, meanwhile, kicked in an additional $250,000 on top of the $240,000 he contributed back in August. To average voters, unfamiliar with the reform trope of the billionaire changemaker, the outsized role being played by rich New Yorkers was utterly incomprehensible. It’s not enough to field the richest baseball team money can buy, now they want our schools too?

The Yes on 2 team insisted that the public schools would not lose any money if there were more charters, but school committees called out their lie:

By October it was clear that the Question 2 ship was beginning to list. The original claim, debuted in a massive ad buy during the Olympics, that expanding charter schools would actually increase funding for public education, had failed to resonate with voters, and so it was off to the next argument. It turned out that charter schools didn’t *drain* or *siphon* money away from district schools as team #NoOn2 kept insisting—and here was a press release about a study to prove it. But once again, Question 2’s proponents, including editorial page editors at the Boston Globe, which ran a prominent *no draining, no siphoning* editorial, ran into the buzzsaw of a whole bunch of people all over the state who actually knew stuff.

Those school committees, which just would not stop passing resolutions against the ballot question, could tell you exactly how much money their city or town was spending on charter schools. The Mayor of Northampton, which is about as far from Boston as you can get, pointed out that his town spends more to send kids to the specialized charter schools favored by affluent parents—a subspecies never mentioned during the campaign—than on an entire elementary school. Meanwhile, cities that are already home to the largest number of charters and would be most affected by the passage of Question 2, began tallying how much charters were already costing them. Lowell, for example, has seen a drastic spike in its charter school bill and now spends more than $16 million on a parallel school system, money that’s being diverted away from *extras,* like paving the roads in Mill City. The charter waitlist in Lowell, by the way, is dwarfed by the number of kids waiting to get into district schools.

The privatization movement lost in both Massachusetts and Georgia, where Governor Deal wanted to change the state constitution to allow the state to take over low-performing schools and give them to charter organizations. The lesson is that it is cheaper and easier to make campaign contributions to elect pro-charter candidates to state boards and state legislatures than to take a risk on a popular vote. In the case of Georgia, Governor Deal could not eliminate local control without changing the state constitution. And the voters said no, by a vote of 60-40.

Read the article. The defeat of Question 2 proves that big money can be beaten when citizens are informed, organized, and prepared to defend their public schools against privatization.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Georgia, Massachusetts, Parents, Privatization, Resistance, Unions

Mercedes Schneider on the Amendment 1 Defeat in Georgia: Dark Money Loses

By dianeravitch
November 9, 2016 //
11

Please read Mercedes Schneider’s recap of the Georgia vote on an “Opportunity School District,” which was defeated by voters.

See who was funding this initiative in addition to the Walton family, the royal family of school privatization.

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

A Letter from a Parent in Massachusetts Who Fought Question 2

By dianeravitch
November 9, 2016 //
26

This came in my email this morning:

For a short while in Boston last night, we were ecstatic. We beat the privatizers on Question 2, and we beat them across the state, with every demographic – except for the whitest, wealthiest towns. As Barbara Madeloni said from the stage at campaign headquarters, “We beat their money with our democracy.”

Our coalition victory against the privatizers was hard-earned and sweet. Our brave and beautiful young people were inspirational. Barbara Madeloni was electrifying. We were the righteous students, parents, and union members.

And then, as the national results started coming in and it became clear that Clinton was in trouble, DFER was spotted in the back of the hotel ballroom. As was Marty Walz, former state legislator-turned-paid-shill for the charter industry.

Some of us – those who’d been door-knocking, who had made calls, created charts, sent tweets, educated our neighbors, debated on stage – became angry. The Yes on 2 campaign, funded by so-called Democrats with zero history of being on the side of working people and the disenfranchised, had forced us to focus on a state measure, for months and months and months, at the exclusion of the presidential campaign. Not a single one of my comrades working themselves to exhaustion – unpaid – to defeat the ballot measure was also volunteering for Hilary. We couldn’t be in two places at once, and we rightly felt the urgency of defeating Question 2. We were also keenly aware that our colleagues in other parts of the country were counting on us to stop the charter tide in Massachusetts.

DFER and Marty Walz heard from us loud and clear last night. We let them know that their support for an expensive, divisive, diversionary campaign will not be forgotten.

Question 2 and the charlatans behind it went down in flames last night. Our bright spot on this dismal morning.

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

Kick in to the Kickstarter for “Backpack Full of Cash”: Here is a Clip from the Film!

By dianeravitch
November 9, 2016 //
1

Be sure to watch this excerpt from Backpack Full of Cash, narrated by Matt Damon.

It is a powerful presentation about the corporate reform movement and the damage it has done in one of America’s greatest cities: Philadelphia, where public schools starve while charter schools are awash in cash.

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

Andre Agassi: Raising Hundreds of Millions As His Own Charter is One of the Worst Schools in Nevada

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2016 //
10

Angie Sullivan, Nevada teacher, reports on the bizarre actions of Andre Agassi, one-time tennis star and high school dropout. His flagship charter school that bears his name is on the state’s list of persistently low-performing schools. It is also known for high rates of teacher and principal turnover. The state may give Agassi’s charter to another charter operator. But Agassi and his business partner Bobby Turner have raised nearly $300 million to build charter schools around the country.

Sullivan writes:


Turner-Agassi Charter School Facilities Fund II, L.P. raised $296,294,416 on 2016-06-16.

http://www.whosraisingmoney.com/turner-agassi-charter-school-facilities-fund-ii-l-p

Agassi has become a very very wealthy man selling his “charter doctrine”.

Unfortunately, his own flagship charter school shows charters are the ultimate tax payer scam.

The worst schools in the state of Nevada are charters.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7bJdQH4mFmEVktMRWhDWFY0Mm8/view

In particular, Agassi Preparatory is not graduating, not performing, not achieving.

Agassi has open the door financially for other Vegas charters which are also on the lowest performing list.

He preaches charter doctrine all over he United States selling real estate and profiteering.

This isn’t really about kids. This is about cold hard cash.

Now Agassi charter may be taken over by another charter.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/possible-changes-ahead-for-agassi-prep-academy

The tax payer needs to be asking some serious questions about who is making money from these charter deals.

The tax payer needs to demand some accountability and transparency from Nevada’s charters.

This is some serious fraud and waste.

Someone needs to be accountable for this fiasco.

Maybe the Charter Authority needs to answer some questions.

Maybe the Nevada State Board of Education.

Maybe the Nevada Department of Education.

Who knew all these charters were failing and either covered it up or did nothing about it? It looks like it’s been going on for at least a decade too from the data I’ve been collecting.

Not good.

Dirty dirty dirty.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, Fraud, Nevada, Privatization

Andrea Gabor: Dark Money Targets Massachusetts Voters

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2016 //
3

Andrea Gabor posted today an update on the Dark Money behind Question 2 in Massachusetts.

https://andreagabor.com/2016/11/07/update-how-long-time-charter-funders-are-upping-the-ante-in-their-bid-to-blow-the-bay-states-charter-school-cap/

She begins:

“On October 24, I posted the story below about dark money–much of it from out-of-state–flowing into Massachusetts to support a “yes” vote on a pro-charter-school ballot question known as Question 2. In the days just before the election, those funds have increased dramatically, making Question 2 the most expensive charter-school ballot initiative in the country, ever. In Massachusetts, which has the most highly rated public schools in the nation, more has been spent by proponents of Ballot 2 than both sides spent on any other ballot initiative in state history, and more dark money has flowed to the initiative than to any state or federal election. Here are the latest totals via Peggy Wiesenberg, attorney, activist and public-school parent who did the analysis for the original post:

—Families for Excellent Schools, $15.6 million

—Other dark-money donors $2 million

–Hedge fund and other investment managers $1.9 million

–Jim and Alice Walton $1.8 million

–Other donors, $1.3 million, including a total $490,000 from Michael Bloomberg

By contrast, union spending in opposition to Question 2, was about $11 million.”

The people of Massachusetts will decide tomorrow who owns their public schools.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Reform, Massachusetts, Privatization

Denis Ian: A Letter to the People of Georgia about Amendment 1

By dianeravitch
November 7, 2016 //
4

Denis Ian, an experienced educator in New York, has some friendly words of advice for the people of Georgia:

Dear Georgia,

Kiss your schools good-bye.

Unless, of course, you can shake yourself out of your slumber before it’s too late.

I know it’s unusual stuff for a Georgian to take the advice of a Yankee, but … here goes.

Here in New York, we woke up at the last minute … and now we’re in the fight of our lives. The tactics might be a bit different, but the aim is exactly the same: a state take-over of the schools we both pay for … and that our children attend. Now you can sleep-walk through this armageddon-in-the-making … or you can slam on the brakes and tell your governor “No, Deal”.

Read on … http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local-education/school-takeover-plan-draws-fire-deal-didnt-seem-to/nsq2b/

So … if you decide, that you’d like your state politicians to relieve you of this responsibility of managing your local schools, here’s what you can expect for your listlessness. Are you ready?

Your tax dollars will become “casino cash” for politicians. They’ll slurp up your school taxes and play politics with that loot all day long … awarding contracts to pals and getting lots of pocket-cash for themselves. Every ear-whisperer will have a chance to load up politicians with their ideas … most of which will involve experimenting on your own children. They’re the ones who get extra-screwed in this “Bad Deal” take-over madness.

You’ll see your schools change every time the political winds shift. Your kids are gonna be on this educational carpet ride … forever hostages in the game of grungy politics. Every child will be a pawn … a game piece … and you know how politicians love to play games, right?

Expect your schools to morph into unrecognizable messes with teachers more and more replaced by tablets and lap-tops and algorithmic strategies that’ll treat your kids like hamsters stuck on a wheel. I wonder if lunch will consist of pellet-food?

Expect the least qualified teachers to be hired … and for the turn-over rate to match McDonald’s. Teachers will become scripted care-takers and machine-mechanics. They’ll be data-dumpers … keeping an eye on your child’s computerized progress. Your kids’ noggins will be inventories several times a day … because they’ll be part of a living nyghtmarethat you allowed to happen.

Boards of education … those local school-governing bodies that you elect your neighbors to … will become patronage jobs … if they exist at all. They’ll be nothing for them to manage because the state bureaucrats and and legislators will be deciding what’s happening in every classroom in every county throughout Georgia. Let that sink in. Imagine … your schools run by folks who have zero expertise and less-than-zero concern for your children. Is that gonna disturb your sleep at all?

Get ready for carpet-baggers … again. Every soft-ware maker, computer tycoon, on-line executive, and textbook pimp will pitch a tent outside the governor’s bedroom. And they’ll be ready to pay-to-play so they can siphon off some of what’s left of your tax dollars. Isn’t this great fun? You get to work long and hard … and they get to play long and hard. With your hard-earned money. Who wouldn’t want a gig like that?

Let’s talk about taxes a bit more. Once this amendment passes, the fate of your schools passes into someone else’s hands … and so does your tax money. And that tax money is …. we’ll … too important not to grow over time … because the intrigue will grow every year. Do NOT LET YOUR PENS RUN DRY! … you’ll be cutting more checks every year for the rest of forever. These shrewdies will never run out of excuses to pinch your wallets and snatch your bucks.

Now … to the most important reasons to resist this laughably titled “Opportunity School District” lurch. Your children.

You are about to hand over your children’s education to the state government. Let that sink in. That’s the same authority that can barely repair the roads, deal with an ice-storm, paint a bridge, and keep their corruption to a semi-disgusting level. Do you think your kids are gonna be in good hands? Be honest.
Your life cannot be so complicated and so consuming that you can’t carve out time to vote on this asinine Amendment 1. And if it is such a busy life … explain that to your kids. Because it’s their future that’s on the line … and in your hands. Tell them what’s coming … and apologize for being too busy to care. That’ll soothe ‘em. For the rest of their lives.

Nothing … N O T H I N G … sets the course of a child’s life more than parents and schools. That partnership has made public schools the great equalizer in this nation for generations. My Irish grandfather dug tunnels in NYC … his son became a college professor. And all six of his sons … including me … own master degrees and lead professional lives. Why would you hand over your child’s future to political clowns in Atlanta? When have they ever done right by you?

So … there’s your Amendment 1 … your scheming “Opportunity School District” drivel.

It’s yours to accept or reject. One requires energy, the other requires nothing.

A Georgian warrior-mother … Stacey Freeman Gyorgy … left this simple wake-up missive for me last week. It’s about politicians. “They have become pantomime villains whose real job is to make us angry …” and, I would add, dangerously dependent.

Snatch your schools back from the brink. Shine your children’s future. Things don’t have to continue as they have. These are your schools … and your children.

You are in charge.

VOTE NO on Amendment !. It’s a BAD DEAL.

Denis Ian

p.s. pass this around … and wake some folks up.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »