Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

Here is the latest poll on Question 2 in Massachusetts, whether to expand the number of charters by 12 a year indefinitely. See page 11.

Question 2 is losing in every demographic category except older Republicans.

Whites and blacks oppose Question 2 by similar proportions.

Younger voters (ages 18-39) overwhelmingly oppose it, by 71-21.

If the trends hold, this will be a massive and humiliating defeat for the corporate reformers, who have spent more on this election (at least $22 million) than on any education referendum anywhere. They won’t miss the $22 million, but they will have sustained a major setback in their plans for privatization.

A veteran educator explains why she will vote NO ON Question 2.

My background and position as a high school administrator have led people to ask me about Question 2, the ballot proposal that would allow expansion of Massachusetts charter schools. I have been around public education my entire life. My father was a Superintendent of Schools in Pittsfield, Brockton, and Weston. My husband taught English at Brockton High School for almost 40 years. I was a practicing attorney for 25 years, changed careers, and am now the very proud principal of Falmouth High School, which my own three children have attended.

With that as a backdrop, I remain baffled as to how charter schools are considered public schools, and how they can take taxpayer money to run smoke and mirrors operations.

I do not pretend to know all charter schools in the Commonwealth, but I do know the one in Hyannis, Sturgis Charter School, which has garnered not only local, but national recognition as a tip top so-called “public” high school.

This is where I get confused. I would like someone to explain how charter schools are “public” schools when the one in my neck of the woods allows for the following:

• None of its teachers are required to be licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) which oversees all of the state’s public schools, and mandates licensure of public school teachers.

• Its teachers are not subjected to the same public school educator evaluation regulations (603 CMR 35.00) that every other public school teacher is bound by (http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=8004).

• Although it claims to admit students by public lottery, it gives applicants priority status if they have a sibling attending the school, it reviews discipline records of applicants before deciding to admit them, and it outright refuses to admit students in grades 11 and 12.

The Sturgis website proudly proclaims that given its lottery admissions process, “All students who wish to attend . . . have an equal chance of getting in.” How is this possible when the enrollment policy clearly states that the number one priority for admission is whether an applicant has a sibling who attends the school? And Sturgis gets to exclude students who want to apply in grades 11 and 12? What other public high school gets to do that?

Moreover, despite the statement on its website that Sturgis “is a tuition-free, public high school [see footnote below] that accepts students through public lottery regardless of past academic records,” Sturgis nevertheless exercises discretion to condition admission upon the review of an applicant’s discipline record. That is some lottery. Indeed, I thought “lottery” meant everyone who plays has an equal chance of winning.

The Sturgis brand of lottery sure sounds more like a stacked deck than a lottery.

Sturgis is a top “public” high school that is not required to follow any of the hiring, licensing, educator evaluation, and admissions practices required of every other public high school in Massachusetts.

And Sturgis is run by a principal, excuse me, an “Executive Director,” who touts the school’s high MCAS scores – why wouldn’t he when the scores are statistically skewed due to cherry-picked students?

Indeed, according to the most recently available DESE data, Sturgis has ZERO English Language Learner students, has almost half the number of High Needs and Economically Disadvantaged students as Falmouth High School, and doled out discipline to just 12 students in the 2014-2015 school year.

I am proud of what we do at Falmouth High School, where we have been able to maintain our Level 1 status for several years now without having to resort to elitist and exclusionary admission practices. Falmouth High School students are regularly awarded top prizes in state science, history, math, foreign language, writing, music, and art competitions.

We have AP Scholars and National Merit Scholars, and our athletic teams can boast regional, state, and even national titles. Falmouth High School students have been admitted to Harvard, Yale, Brown, Middlebury, Amherst, Wellesley, Smith, MIT, Williams, Columbia, University of Chicago, the Air Force Academy, Northwestern, and a slew of other top tier colleges and universities. According to its own 2015-2016 school profile, from 2002 to 2015, it appears not a single Sturgis graduate had been accepted to Harvard or Yale — http://www.sturgischarterschool.com/documents/ProfileWest.pdf — nor to Williams, Amherst, Wellesley, or Middlebury, the top four liberal arts colleges in the country.

In its 2016-2017 school profile, Harvard was finally added to the list — http://www.sturgischarterschool.com/documents/2016ProfileEast.pdf. Nevertheless, hidden deep within the Sturgis website is a veiled warning that colleges do not always look so kindly on the school’s International Baccalaureate Programme (http://www.sturgischarterschool.org/guidance/IBCollege.html). So it runs a “Programme” with two “m’s” and an “e” at the end, that despite its fancy, pretentious sounding name, may hinder a student’s ability to enter a top college? I’d like to see that disclaimer on the website of any real public high school.

But what is most important, most impressive, is that Falmouth High School is a public school where nobody is turned away. Nobody. We don’t have the right to exclude anyone, and we don’t want that right — because we are a public school. We take every child, whatever his status or ability, and still we retain our Level 1 standing and our sense of dignity. This is what real public schools do, all of them.

As a taxpayer, I am outraged.

As a school administrator, I am angered that not only must we fight for every dollar, but we must fight to keep families from being bamboozled by so-called “public” charter schools. It is nose-on-the-face plain that charter schools are not public schools. Real public schools do not participate in elitist and exclusionary admissions practices that are axiomatically antithetical to the meaning of public education. Go ahead and let charters do what they want, but let’s stop pretending they are public schools, and let’s stop funding them as such. Please vote no on Question 2.

Mary Whalen Gans, J.D., M.Ed.

footnote: Why the need to proclaim that it is a “tuition-free public high school”? What public high school charges tuition? Is it that Sturgis is trying to connote that it’s giving something of great quality that you’d otherwise have to pay for in the private sector? Ridiculous….

The New York Times published a fair and balanced account of the heated battle over Question 2.

It notes that $34 million will (so far) be spent on this question over whether to expand the number of charter schools. Most of it is “dark money” from out of state billionaires, like the Waltons of Arkansas.

It interviews people who favor Question 2 and people who oppose it.

It says that some leaders (like Elizabeth Warren) are against Question 2, while others (Governor Baker) support it.

It notes that some civil rights groups (like the Urban League) are for it, while others (the NAACP and Black Lives Matter in Cambridge) are against it.

The good news buried in the article is that the latest poll shows Question 2 losing.

It says that advocates for charters say it will cost no new money to open more charters, while supporters of public schools insist that it is already causing budget cuts in public schools and will lead to more budget cuts and school closings.

The bottom line of the battle is at the end of the article, where Maurice Cunningham of Boston University, who has studied the money behind the charter question, says:

“if you can’t stop the hidden billionaire money in Massachusetts, then you can’t stop it anywhere.”

Conversely, if the people of Massachusetts can beat back the billionaires, despite their command of television and the Boston Globe, then citizen action can beat the billionaires everywhere.

What is so thrilling about the battle over Question 2 is that everything we have discussed on this blog is coming out into the open: the NAACP, with its call for a moratorium, has stripped away phony claims about school choice being the “civil rights issue” of our time. The billionaires’ privatization agenda is debated daily by parents and civic activists. The fact that school choice is being pushed by Republicans and opposed by many Democrats is explicit.

If the people of Massachusetts vote “NO” on Question 2, it will be a resounding defeat for the billionaires and their Dark Money groups, and it will echo around the nation.

If the people of Massachusetts vote “NO” on Question 2, it will signal their determination to build a strong public school system for all children, not simply add a few more escape hatches for a few children, which would debilitate the public schools.

Moody’s Investors Service released a warning earlier this week warning that if Massachusetts voters pass Question 2 to expand the number of charter schools in the state, it may have a negative impact on the credit ratings of Boston and three other cities in the state.

The story appeared in the Boston Globe, which earlier urged voters to pass the controversial referendum, even though it will drain millions of dollars from the state’s public schools and likely harm the nation’s most successful state system of public schools.

The credit-rating agency Moody’s Investors Service is warning Boston and three other Massachusetts cities that passage of a ballot measure to expand charter schools could weaken the municipalities’ financial standing and ultimately threaten their bond ratings.

In e-mails sent Monday, Nicholas Lehman, an assistant vice president at Moody’s, warned that passage of the referendum would be “credit negative” for the cities.

“Depending on the Nov. 8 vote, the general credit view is the following: A vote of ‘No’ is credit positive for urban cities. A vote of ‘Yes’ is credit negative for urban cities,” Lehman wrote.

Lehman told the cities he would provide a draft analysis of the referendum’s impact on Wednesday and solicit their comment, publishing a full report after the election.

The other three cities in Massachusetts are Lawrence, Fall River, and Springfield. A spokesman for the Boston Municipal Research Bureau said a “yes” vote might cause fiscal hardship, but would likely be offset by closing public schools with empty seats (as new charters open) and concessions from teachers.

So a “yes” vote would mean closing more public schools and reducing salaries or pensions or other benefits from teachers. Why does the corporate reform industry want to destabilize the most successful state school system in the nation?

Why are so many in the financial industry pouring millions into a campaign that will obviously undermine the fiscal stability of urban districts in the state? If Moody’s understands it, why don’t the equity investors and hedge fund managers? Maybe it is because so few of the donors to Question 2 live in Massachusetts or have ever set foot in a public school. They have no skin in the game. For them, it is a hobby, not a financial decision.

Mercedes Schneider writes about the recent events in Minnesota, where Campbell Brown and her reform organization (Partnership for Educational Justice) filed a Vergara-style lawsuit against teacher tenure, claiming that tenure has some relation to low test scores and therefore violates the civil rights of students of color who get low test scores.

This same claim cost millions of dollars to litigate in California after a lower court judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the Vergara case, but was then overturned in two appeals by higher courts. The billionaires behind corporate reform desperately wanted to have tenure declared a violation of civil rights, and they spent freely to promote that idea. The unions representing teachers wasted dues defending teachers’ right to due process.

But the outcome in Minnesota was different because the judge hearing the case couldn’t find a connection between tenure and test scores!

On October 26, 2016, the Minnesota teacher tenure lawsuit prodded by Campbell Brown’s Partnership for Educational Justice (PEJ) hit a roadblock when Ramsey County (MN) Judge Margaret Marrinan tossed out the PEJ-supported (instigated?) Forslund vs. Minnesota suit on the grounds that the suit “failed to establish a link between low academic achievement and the due process provided by the tenure laws,” as the Star Tribune reports.

There is something to be said for common sense.

Rumor hath it that Brown will file suit in other states. Here is hoping that she runs into more judges who are wise and know that she is peddling anti-teacher nonsense.

EduShyster and her colleague Aaron French created a podcast about the crucial vote in Georgia on changing the State Constitution to allow the state to take over public schools with low test scores and turn them into charters or do whatever else the state wants to do.

Through the medium of audio, you are able to hear the advocates’ deceptive advertising, urging people to vote for the amendment because it will only affect “those children,” not yours.

Jennifer Berkshire interviews parent advocates, who understand that the campaign for Amendment 1 is deceptive. 140 struggling schools might be taken over, and most of them will be schools that enroll children of color.

Kent McGuire, head of the Southern Education Foundation, worries that the goal is to re-establish a dual school system. He commends the governor for taking an interest in improving education for the kids with the lowest scores, but he sees no vision of how to do that, just a managerial change.

Unless EduShyster found outliers in the discussion, the outlook for Amendment 1 is not good.

I wonder if voters know–or if Governor Nathan Deal knows–that the New Orleans takeover did not close achievement gaps, the Tennessee Achievement District failed, and the Educational Achievement Authority in Michigan failed. If they do, why are they creating yet another opportunity to privatize public schools and call it a solution to a problem they are not addressing?

In case you don’t have time to listen to the podcast, here is the transcript:

Georgia Has Something on It’s Mind: When voters in Georgia go to the polls, they face another decision besides Clinton versus Trump. They’ll also be weighing in on a single divisive sentence. Shall the constitution of Georgia be amended to allow the State to intervene in chronically failing public schools in order to improve student performance? In this episode of Have You Heard, we head to Atlanta to talk to voters, including parents, about why the proposal to amend the state constitution is so controversial.

Aaron French: Hey, everyone. Welcome to this addition of Have You Heard, I’m Aaron French.

Jennifer
Berkshire: I’m Jennifer Berkshire. Aaron, I can tell by your, somewhat far away sound, that you must be in the remote Have You Heard production studios.

French: I am indeed, in a very super secret location.

Berkshire: Do you know where I am?

French: There’s definitely something different about your voice. I can’t quite place it.

Berkshire: If you’re picking up on a slight southern accent, it’s not because I’m making fun of you. I’m in Georgia.

French: What are you doing down there?

Berkshire: I headed down to Georgia with my microphone because there’s a hotly contested question on the ballot that voters are going to be weighing in on. They’re voting on whether to amend the state constitution to give the Governor the power to take over struggling schools.

French: My understanding is what makes this really unique is that it’s the first time in history that any state has put this kind of question on a ballot for elections.

Berkshire: That’s correct, and what I discovered as I went around and talked to people who are directly affected by the question is that they have a lot to say.

French: Let’s hear from them then.

Berkshire: When voters in Georgia go to the polls, they face another decision besides Clinton versus Trump. They’ll also be weighing in on a single divisive sentence. Shall the constitution of Georgia be amended to allow the State to intervene in chronically failing public schools in order to improve student performance? Got that?

Kimberly Brookes: You’re changing the Georgia constitution, that is major.

Berkshire: By amending the state constitution voters will the State the authority to take over some 140 struggling Georgia schools. It’s called an Opportunity School District, modeled on what happened with the New Orleans public schools after Katrina. While these independent state-run districts are now popping up around the country, what makes Georgia different is that it’s the first time the question has been put before voters. You can put parent advocate and Atlanta native Kimberly Brooks down as a no.

Brookes: It’s just misleading. Pretty simple, should the Governor’s Office intervene for failing schools. There are psychological triggers. That’s my own view of that. When you think of failing, that’s horrible. You think of these little kids. You think of the teacher. “Oh, my god, yes” but “no” because what is not said is very broad. How are you defining failing?

Berkshire: If you want to see just how intense the debate over Amendment 1 has gotten, go no further that a discussion around the preamble. Those are the 14 words on the ballot that introduce the school takeover plan to voters. “Provides greater flexibility and state accountability to fix failing schools through increasing community involvement.”

Brookes: What does this mean? Will the parent be able to have a voice over a school in their area? If you’re a parent and you’re a tax payer and you contribute a lot to your taxes, do you want to not even have a say-so in your superintendent because they are going to be appointed? Do you not want to have any say-so in the operations and the spending of the school? Because you’ll lose those rights. Do you know that?

Berkshire: The answers to these questions are buried deep in the legislation that will go into effect if voters approve Amendment 1. With new powers the State can step in and close schools with persistently low test scores. It can turn them over to charter operators, it could run the schools directly or jointly with the local school board.

The decisions will largely be in the hands of a state-appointed superintendent. In other words, it’s complicated and, as Brooks sees it, political.

Brookes: Some of my, and I say my parents because they are mine, they’re hard working people, and they have a lot of other challenges. If the school system has the responsibility to do it. They should not be concerned about when their child goes to school any politics in one of the, supposed to be, most safest places and sacred structures, elementary school.

Berkshire: Brooks started advocating for parents back in 2012 when the Atlanta public schools closed a dozen schools. Community meetings were held for parent input. She says that even though parents spoke up, they weren’t heard. She’s worried that the Governor’s school take-over plan will eliminate the little voice that her parents do have.

Brookes: I decided to become an advocate because a lot the parents that I served as a PTA president, it was an eye opener for me. I didn’t realize the social problems that they had that influenced their ability to be involved in their children’s lives and to even understand what quality education looks like. I felt that it was my responsibility to start advocating for parents.

Berkshire: The question of whether of amend the Georgia constitution will be decided by voters across the state. The schools that dominate the take-over list are largely congregated in and around Atlanta. They have something else in common too. According to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, the schools on the list are attended by students who are overwhelmingly African American and low income.

Valerie Williams: Washington High was established in 1924. It was the first African American high school in the southeast. People came from far and near to matriculate here. We’ve had proud alumnus such as Martin Luther King, Jr. We have Lena Horne. We have Pearlie Dove, Nipsey Russell, Louis Sullivan.

Berkshire: That’s Valerie Williams. She’s a alumni of Booker T. Washington High School on Atlanta’s west side. It’s been on and off the list of schools that could, potentially, be taken over. It’s not the only historic African American school whose fate hangs in the balance.

Williams: What this would means for us is that, how can a state even allow a school that’s on the National Historic Registry be even in this place? That’s not only the Booker T. Washington, it’s the Frederick Douglass, it’s the Benjamin E. Mays. The schools of whom are named after great African Americans. How can you not be intentional about the success of these schools?

Berkshire: When Williams thinks about community involvement she has in mind the huge community of people who attended historic black schools like Booker T. Washington. While voters may be determining the future of these schools, Williams says their potential take-over is also a threat to the past.

Williams: What this would mean to us is our 90+ years of legacy and history would be gone. There is no other school, there is no other place in the world like our Booker T. Washington High School in Atlanta, Georgia.

Berkshire: If creating a state-run school district that scoops up struggling schools isn’t the answer, what is? Williams says that when she looks at successful schools in the Atlanta area, she sees a clear difference.

Williams: What I believe we need is the same equitable resources that schools that are being successful have. If we receive the equitable amount of resources in personnel that have made the north side successful, we would be successful.

Berkshire: Williams would also like to see the Governor whose the driving force behind the Opportunity School District, focus much more on the communities around the schools especially at a time when neighborhoods like hers in west Atlanta are gentrifying rapidly. It’s poorest residents risk being left behind or pushed out altogether.

Williams: If the Governor was very intentional about really pulling people up from the bootstrap, it’s not just education. You have to go into these communities. You have to show people a difference. You have to show people without displacing them.

Berkshire: By now you’re probably getting the sense that the debate over Amendment 1 in Georgia isn’t just about struggling schools or accountability. It’s about history and resources, who gets to make decisions and, above all, it’s about race. Take one of the ads that’s been airing in favor of the ballot question.

Audio of Yes on 1 Campaign ad:

I think it’s devastating that there’s 68,000 children that are in failing schools.

Our children cannot wait for a good education. They deserve a good education.

The Opportunity School District is not going to affect those that are already doing well.

This is an opportunity to help those students that have been failing for decades.

I just can’t imagine what those other parents have to go through. That’s why I’m voting yes for the Opportunity School District.

Vote “yes” on Question 1.

Kent McGuire: Even in the advertising that’s on television and, now, you have a person on camera, basically, saying to us, “Don’t worry, you can vote for this. This is about other people’s kids.”

Berkshire: Kent McGuire is the head of the Southern Education Foundation, a group that got it’s start 150 years ago as part of the effort to help Blacks in the South assimilate after the Civil War. He says that he can’t help but recall Georgia’s past when he considers the proposal to set up a separate school district for students who are overwhelmingly poor and African American.

McGuire: It makes you worry that this is about creating a dual system, not about creating one really high quality system for all kids. It does make you worry about that a lot.

Berkshire: The campaign to sell Amendment 1 to voters is heavy on feel-good buzz words, opportunity, achievement, accountability. McGuire says he’s noticed one notable omission. There’s no talk about what schools that are part of the Opportunity School District will actually do. Nothing about teaching or learning.

McGuire: There is no underlying vision for teaching and learning that has been expressed here or revealed, none. I don’t think people, the architects of this, believe we have a design problem in our education system. They just think we have a managerial one. That is the tip of the iceberg, is the point I would want to make.

Berkshire: Amendment 1 is running strong among backers of Georgia’s Republican Governor Nathan Deal. They’re not the only ones who support it. Priscilla Davenport says that while many of her DeKalb County neighbors are opposing the Opportunity School District, you can put her down as a “yes” vote.

Priscilla Davenport: For me, as a parent, I feel that I know what has not worked in more than 10 years. I’m willing to make a change, to try something new.

Berkshire: Davenport grew up in this metro-Atlanta county, and she says she can still recall a time when it’s schools were a draw.

Davenport: When I was younger and living in DeKalb County School District was the top school district. Everyone was moving to attend the schools in DeKalb County.

Berkshire: Today, though, Davenport’s daughter attends a high school that’s on the state take-over list. Davenport says she chose to send her daughter to the school instead of a charter or magnet because it had been slated to undergo a transformation. Four years in, she’s frustrated that not much seems transformed.

Davenport: The education level did not really increase even though the funding and the programs were put in place. A lot of those things, maybe they just didn’t work. I’m not sure but, for sure, the education level of the school did not increase. The enrollment dropped because a lot of people after seeing that, they decided to take their children to other schools.

Berkshire: Davenport says when she looks at the list of schools that could be taken over by the State, she notices something else they share besides the demographics of the students. Few of them have really active and engaged parents.

Davenport: If you check the research on parent involvement, most of the passing schools have high parental involvement and welcoming parents and gathering parents and doing things with parents and involving parents in the educational process of their children.

Berkshire: Listening to Davenport, I’m struck by just how much she sounds like parent advocate Kimberly Brooks who’s leading the charge against Amendment 1. If Brooks fears for what a state take over will mean for parental involvement in the future, Davenport says schools like her daughter’s make it way too hard for parents to make their voices heard now.

Davenport: I did realize that as parents are actively involved in the school, it’s always not a welcome door with the leadership. When you are going in school and you’re participating and you’re being very active in your child’s education life, that’s not always wanted on a higher level.

Berkshire: Davenport says she’s under no illusion that a state run take-over will be a cure-all to the problems confronting schools like those in DeKalb County. In fact, she’s aware that similar efforts in other states have been controversial and have produced, at best, mixed results.

Davenport: No one knows whether this will work or not but we are hoping that it will work if it pass because, at least, it opens a door for our community to address education.

Berkshire: Even staunch Amendment 1 opponent Kent McGuire says he has to give the Governor some credit for raising the issue of how best to educate students in Georgia who need the most help.

McGuire: We’re not saying schools that aren’t performing well don’t need help, we do. Let me commend the Governor for taking an interest in the lowest performing schools in Georgia. He was right to do so. The real question is, what’s the best way to do that.

Berkshire: Thanks for tuning into another installment of Have You Heard. If my math is correct, that brings us up to episode #8 which means that our 10-part series is almost over. If you really like what you’ve been hearing and maybe want to encourage us to do more, or have ideas about episodes we haven’t touched on, this would be a good time to drop us a line. You can find us on Twitter. I’m @EduShyster, and Aaron is @AaronMoFoFrench. Until next time, I’m Jennifer Berkshire, and that’s what we’ve heard.

http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/in/2016/11/01/teach-for-americas-pac-spends-big-on-a-local-indiana-election-but-no-one-quite-knows-why/#.WBtJgHT3ahC

Here we go again. Teach for America, working through its little-known but well-funded political arm, called Leadership for Educational Equity, is dumping a load of money into a school board race in a small district outside of Indianapolis. It wants to place a charter school teacher on the school board of Washington Township, a district of 11,000 students.

The TFA candidate, Deitric Hall, is a newcomer to Indiana. He moved there from California three years ago. LEE has given him $32,000 to run for school board.

LEE has been active in funding candidates for key state and local positions in other states, on school boards and in legislatures.

Their candidates will of course support TFA, charter schools, and privatization.

Chalkbeat Indiana writes:

It’s a small-scale version of a phenomenon that has played out in urban districts around the country as outside campaign contributions have increasingly influenced pivotal school board races. In Indianapolis Public Schools, outside contributions helped radically reshape the board in 2012 and 2014, when out-of-state funders backed a victory for charter-school supporters.

But unlike in IPS, Washington Township isn’t facing a pivotal election — and Hall’s opponent had raised barely any money until this month. That has raised eyebrows in the area, where locals wonder why LEE, even given Hall’s connection to TFA, would spend so heavily on the race.

A native of California, Hall moved to Indianapolis three years ago for a teaching position through TFA, a national nonprofit that recruits new teachers for school districts with high-needs students.

He landed a position at KIPP Indy Unite Elementary, where he now works with students with special needs. Hall, who doesn’t have children, says his background as an educator will offer valuable insight to the board, and despite being new to the community, he is dedicated to improving the schools.

LEE’s spokesman is Erik Guckian, who previously served as top education advisor the Tea Party Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina. Under McGrory’s leadership, and presumably with Guckian’s advice, the state shut down its successful career teacher preparation program (North Carolina Teaching Fellows) and shifted its $6 million to TFA.

Three of the five school board seats are up for election in Washington Township. Hall is facing off against one opponent, John Fencl, for an at-large seat representing the entire district.

Fencl has deep roots in the community: He is a parent of two middle schoolers in Washington Township where he also grew up and went to school. Fencl, an accountant, has volunteered as a math tutor and coach in the district. He said his work mentoring middle school boys has given him particular insight into the schools.

“I’m focused on the district, involved in the district,” he said. “I understand what Washington Township schools are about.”

When Fencl filed a fundraising report with the county earlier this month, he had raised just $750, which he said was because he wasn’t sure how competitive the race would be. But when he saw how much money Hall had raised, he shifted into high gear. In just a couple of weeks, Fencl boosted his fundraising to close to $7,500, he said. About $5,000 of that came from a single donor, Washington Township attorney Charles Rubright.

Since it became clear how much money Hall raised, other community members, including parents and even high school students, have become active in the race. They say they are motivated by concern over the role out-of-state funding is playing in Hall’s campaign.

Kristina Frey is a Washington Township parent who leads the Parent Council Network, a longstanding political group that endorsed Fencl. When she learned that Hall had joined the race, she set up a meeting to hear about his plan for the district and she came away uncertain why he was even running, she said.

“My suspicion is that folks in the education reform movement are looking at how they can potentially expand outside of IPS boundaries,” Frey said. “I would not be surprised to see them come back again with more money and try to gain a majority as they did in IPS.”

Will Washington Township vote in a TFA representative with big money behind him or will they elect a parent who is active in the community? We will see in a few days.

This just happened in Los Angeles: Educators at four LAUSD public schools turned away money from the two billionaire backers of privatization. Broad and Walton are offering funding to these schools at the same time that their charters are diverting hundreds of millions of dollars from the district’s public schools.


For immediate release
Media Contact:
Anna Bakalis
UTLA Communications Director
213-305-9654

UTLA Educators Overwhelmingly Vote Against Broad-Walmart Grant Funding

Los Angeles, CA – This week, educators at four LAUSD schools voted to reject grant money from “Great Public Schools Now,” the public face of a group backed by the California Charter School Association and bankrolled by billionaires Eli Broad and the Waltons of Walmart.

Educators say that this is a PR stunt, not a genuine effort to fund schools in need and are calling on the District to uphold the vote by not accepting the grant money from GPSN, in any way. These four schools are within the targeted 10 areas for Broad-Walmart funding.

The vote was 98% in favor of rejecting the money; ballot counts at Drew Middle School, Pacoima Middle School, San Fernando High School, and Gompers Middle School were, respectively, 35 to 1, 58 to 0, 72 to 0, and 22 to 3.

Jared Dozal, who voted against his school receiving Broad-Walmart money, is a math and computer science teacher at San Fernando High School. He says this is a distraction from real, lasting efforts for sustainable funding for all public schools.

“We know that some will see this as an opportunity missed for funding, but the amount offered is peanuts for the billionaires behind this effort,” Dozal said. “We won’t let this distract us from saving our schools from a corporate takeover, paid for by the people who only want to destroy public education.”

Dozal said the grant’s offer of “up to” $250,000 per year for three years is insulting, considering the amount of money siphoned from public schools to subsidize rampant charter school growth.

For example, according to LAUSD’s own numbers, Gompers Middle School has $1.4 million less in its budget than 2013. Since school budgets are in large part determined by enrollment, the rapid expansion of charter school growth has clearly impacted the middle school.

In the zip code that Gompers is in, and in the nearby zip codes, there are 21 charter schools. Thirteen of these are the largest corporate charters, including Green Dot, Alliance, Aspire and Kipp. The Waltons of Walmart have contributed generously to these four corporate charters, and Eli Broad alone has contributed more than $75 million over the last few years. In fact, in the June 2015 GPSN plan, Broad and Walton say they will be raising $135 million more for these charter school operators.

Getting the funding and resources our students need requires meaningful and sustainable initiatives. To that end, members of United Teachers Los Angeles join with parents and community members to address issues like school site improvements and student safety, enriched curriculum that includes funding for arts, music and ethnic studies as well as fully staffed schools with full-time nurses, librarians and counselors.

UTLA is also working to pass Prop. 55 on next week’s ballot, pursuing long-term funding solutions in Sacramento, and supporting efforts such as the Make It Fair campaign to close corporate property tax loopholes.

A familiar line in charter school promotional ads is that thousands of children are stuck in “failing public schools” while on wait lists to get into charters. Anytime a reporter digs in, the claim is not quite true.

Isaiah Thompson is an investigative reporter for WGBH in Boston. He heard the claim by pro-charter advocates of Question 2 that 33,000 students are on charter wait lists. So he checked the facts and found that the wait lists had duplicate names, children who had applied to more than one school, children who had been accepted in a charter school but whose names remained on the list, and children who were no longer waiting.

He discovered there are also wait lists to get into preferred Boston public schools, but no one ever talks about them.

Andrea Gabor, who is a professor of business journalism at Baruch College of the City University of New York, explores the influx of millions of dollars into Massachusetts to influence the referendum on charter schools.

https://andreagabor.com/2016/10/24/how-leading-charter-funders-are-upping-the-ante-in-their-bid-to-blow-the-bay-states-charter-school-cap/

Many of the donors are unknown, but the $33 million spent on this referendum is historic.

Most of the money to support public schools comes from teachers and their unions.

Twice as much comes from financiers, Wall Street, and corporate interests that favor privatization and non-union schools.

The corporate interests know that a victory in the nation’s top-performing state will lay the groundwork for busting the teachers’ union and for privatizing public schools in many other states. If they can win in Massachusetts, with its strong history of local school committees and excellent public schools, they can win anywhere.