Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

Peg Robertson, one of the leading figures in the Opt Out movement, here writes movingly about her own experiences as a teacher, struggling to do her best for her students in an atmosphere dominated by corporate reform ideas.

She writes about the family that shaped her views about education.

She offers practical and wise suggestions for every teacher in the same predicament.

This is an action guide that every teacher will enjoy reading.

Read what she says, share it, and listen to her words of wisdom.

Consider this historical satire. It was written by Paul Horton, who teaches history at the University of Chicago Lab School.

 

A Modest Proposal for the Gang of Four

(Arne Duncan, Bill Gates, Michelle Rhee, Jeb Bush)

Your plan for defeating the yellow dogs of reaction has not been effective. You need to get serious. Because you know very little about the history of revolutionary progress (Mr. Duncan, you were fed the phrase “Potemkin Village” by someone with a reactionary history degree) you need some motivation. If you cannot make this happen within two years, you will not benefit from a future in the Foundation Politburo, you will not be granted a passport, and you will not be allowed to shop in party stores.

 

To continue the Cultural Revolution in Education we need to break the spirit of the reactionary teachers who insist that there might be value in teaching literary and philosophical classics, languages, culture, and what some describe as the “Humanities.” The Humanities are nothing but selfish, evil Bourgeois reaction that slows the creation of “21st Century Skills” acquisition. All else is pretense: we need 21st century workers and we need them ready for community colleges that will feed our factory dormitories with skilled workers.

 

We will achieve the global VAM (value added measurement) threshold in four years. Reactionary teachers all over the world will be pitted against each other and resistance will be crushed.

 

Until then, we need to “Clamp-down” harder (The Clash) to create fear so that the reactionary house of cards will fall very easily.

 

Strategic Plan:

 

Year One: Invite criticism from teacher’s unions and compile a list of members of teacher’s unions.

 

–selectively quote teacher union criticisms of revolutionary reform in revolutionary (corporate) media outlets

 

–target all union members in appearances on major talking heads show segments

 

–create “forums” at major universities, Chambers of Commerce, and civic organizations to explain the voluntary nature of all reform efforts

 

–instruct Red Guard (Teach for America) to receive ideological instruction at Foundation Politburo School

 

–hire Red Guard into the College Board, Pearson Education, Educational Testing Service, state and local superintendent jobs

–elect Red Guard into jobs on state school boards, into state legislatures and senates

 

–cozy Red Guard up to Congressmen and Senators, especially those who sit on Education and Budget Committees

 

–Red Guard will coordinate with ALEC to sponsor “parent trigger legislation” to create more charters and jobs for Red Guard

 

–pay for Red Guard as Education policy staff for all elected officials

 

–pay Red Guard to attack, spit on, and humiliate commenters to reactionary blog posts

 

–hire Red Guard as public and charter school administrators to attack the reactionary yellow dogs who speak of “democratic process,” “progressive education,” and “laboratories for democracy.”

 

–instruct Red Guard administrators to create intentional “hostile workplace” to intimidate reactionary teachers. All union members should see their files thicken and be exposed to frequent “shake-downs.” The older, more depressed teachers should be further intimidated by frequent negative observations and assessments. At assessment conferences, the sentence “we have viewed your e-mail messages over the past five years and we strongly encourage you to resign” should be shared at the end of negative evaluation.

 

–pay Red Guard Administrators a bonus for every experienced teacher who resigns or retires

 

 

Year Two: Learning from the New York Experience

 

–have state superintendents “cut” scores so that only those in impoverished neighborhood schools fail

 

–use “low student attendance” and “overcrowding” to close public schools in underserved areas. This is often a two-step process: close schools for low attendance, then consolidate to create overcrowding to justify opening more charters

 

–use sticks and carrots to coopt local and national political officials

 

–congressmen in suburban districts will be told: “if you go with the program we have campaign funds from potential investors for you, if not, you are political toast.”

 

–corporate leaders will speak often at meetings in well funded suburban districts to gain the support of upper income parents and opinion leaders

 

–have all revolutionary (corporate) media outlets supplied with talking points that repeat “higher standards,” “21st century skills,” “low test scores mean higher standards,” “voluntary,” “state driven,” “charters are innovative,” and “teachers are lazy reactionaries” every day.

 

–block all revolutionary media access to reactionaries

 

–pay for astroturf (disguised Red Guard) protests in favor of new charters at school board and city-council meetings

 

 

Year Three: Reeducation Camp: Rat Islands (The Aleutians)

 

–the Red Guard will be instructed to eliminate all complainers

 

–reactionaries will be deported to work camp

 

–reactionaries will be instructed to respect data and will be forced to write programs for educational video games for “Turn it Up” corporation

 

–Are you a reactionary?

 

 

Think about it!

 

 

The Friendly Foundation Politburo (Comrade Narrow)

You remember Tony Bennett? Not the famous singer but the guy who was State Commissioner of education in Florida. The guy who led the effort to privatize public education in Indiana and led the charge for charter schools, vouchers, for-profit charters, virtual charters, high-stakes testing, the A-F grading system, and the elimination of collective bargaining rights for teachers. Remember that he was honored by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute as the leading “reformer” (translated, privatizers) of all state chiefs. He was also chair of Jeb Bush’s “Chiefs for Change,” composed of state superintendents who share Jeb’s antipathy to public education.

Now, you may recall, that Bennett ran for re-election and was trounced by Democrat Glenda Ritz. Despite Bennett’s more than 5-1 funding advantage over Ritz, she won more votes than the new Republican governor, Mike Pence.

Here is a recap: After his stunning defeat, Bennett was promptly hired as state superintendent in Florida, where Jeb Bush created the template for the privatization movement. Meanwhile, back in Indiana, newly elected Governor Pence has done whatever he could to strip power and authority away from Glenda Ritz’s office and turn it over to a parallel agency that he created or to the Legislature, controlled by his allies.

As for Bennett, he didn’t last long in Florida. In August 2013, he resigned after a journalist for AP revealed that Bennett and his team had changed the A-F grading system to avoid giving a C grade to a charter school founded by a major contributor. Bennett contested the journalist’s interpretation, but his resignation suggested tat he wasn’t prepared to fight to refute the allegations.

The Bennett story was one of the biggest of the year.

There is only one other important detail that has not been explored, at least not on this blog: Who put up nearly $2 million to re-elect Tony Bennett in Indiana? Was it supplied by grateful parents in Indiana? No.

Mostly, it was big out-of-state donors who fund the privatization movement across the nation, in state and even local races.

His single biggest contributor was Alice Walton of the Walmart family of Arkansas. She gave $200,000, nearly 11% of Bennett’s total. Alice Walton has generously funded privatization campaigns in Georgia, Washington state, and elsewhere.

His second largest contribution of $175,000 came from Dean V. White, an Indiana corporate leader who is a major on or to Indiana Republicans.

Christel Dehaan gave Bennett $90,000. It was her charter school that was at the center of the grade–fixing scandal. Dehaan gave a total of $283,000 to the Indiana Republican Party this year.

Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst contributed $64,000.

There were also contributions to Tony Bennett by Eli Broad of Los Angeles, who pretends to be a liberal Democrat; the voucher-loving, far-right American Federation of Children, led by the DeVos family; Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, who prefers to project an image as a liberal independent; Roger Hertog, equity investor in New York and former chair of NYC’s conservative Manhattan Institute; Dan Loeb, hedge fund manager in New York City.

Florida blogger Bob Sikes reported: “Rhee’s contribution to Bennett’s Indiana campaign places her among his top contributors. Among his contributors from Florida were three members of Florida’s board of education, Jeb Bush, Patricia Levesque and charter school giants Charter Schools USA and Academica.” Patricia Levesque is Jeb Bush’s top policy advisor.

We know the formula by now for destroying public education and handing it off to entrepreneurs who can cut costs, package it, extract a profit (or remain nonprofit while paying exorbitant executive salaries):

Cry “crisis.” Set impossible targets (100% success on tests normed on a bell curve). Demoralize teachers. Fire the most experienced teachers. Hire low-wage temporary teachers who will leave within three years, thus eliminating future pension obligations. Close schools and disrupt communities. Turn schools over to entrepreneurs, to amateurs, to non-educators, to sports stars, to charter chains. Watch as public schools are dissolved and disappear. Watch as people become consumers, not citizens.

But now others get it, even if most of our major editorial boards do not.

Robert Freeman writes here about the public theft that is underway.

From Nebraska comes a letter from a retired teacher. He thinks there should be a special award for the person who best exemplifies the failed ideas of Trofim Lysenko. Lysenko was a biologist and agonomist whose ideas about agriculture were wrong but made compulsory.

Here is the winner:

A challenge to readers of your blog:
Find an organization or a department or college of education that would develop the criteria for Lysenko Awards, that would investigate those worthy of the Lysenko Awards, and that would grant Lysenko Awards to deserving persons with proper ceremony and publicly. Recipients shall forever be known as Lysenkoites, the followers of Lysenkoism. .
The awards will remind everyone of Soviet director of genetics for agriculture Trofim Lysenko’s use of centralized political power to implement unscientific genetics using pseudoscience.
Lysenko rejected evidence about genes and plant hormones but accepted false theories of genetics which he required researchers and agriculture leaders to follow.
Lysenko put Soviet agriculture behind for a generation.
Centralized political power continues to implement No Child Left Behind , Race to the Top, Common Core, and inBloom Untested ideology with bribes and punishments requires miseducation in the name of pseudoscience.
More than one person should receive the Lysenko Awards. Arne Duncan’s actions have mirrored those of Trofim Lysenko. After an Award Ceremony, he would be called Lysenkoite Arnie Duncan.
Lysenko Awards would help stop American education from regressing further. Do not let American education, like Soviet agriculture, be put behind for a generation.
Pail Kaldahl
Retired Teacher
Bellevue, Nebraska

Mercedes Schneider is a Wonder Woman of data. She teaches high school English in Louisiana, holds a Ph.D. in research methods, and writes lengthy, carefully documented articles when she is not teaching.

I can’t wait to see her book, which will be published in 2014.

When the so-called “Center for Union Facts” purchased a full-page ad in the New York Times to attack Randi Weingarten and teachers’ unions for the alleged “decline” in PISA scores, Schneider wrote a post exposing that the CUF is neither a “center” nor does it deal in “facts.” It is a public relations firm that represents rightwing corporate interests and specializes in union-busting, among its other unsavory projects.

I also wrote a post about CUF, describing my personal encounter with its president Richard Berman at a conference of rightwing  philanthropies, where he explained his campaign to discredit teachers’ unions.

CUF wrote a response, attacking me and ignoring Schneider’s expose of their funding.

In this post, Schneider blasts back. It is Mercedes at her best, the dogged researcher who is principled, courageous, witty, and fearless.

Let’s see if the CUF has the nerve to go after Mercedes.

I place my bets on her.

Lisa Alva Wood, a teacher in the Los Angeles public schools, belonged to an array of corporate reform groups.

She belonged to Educators for Excellence and other corporate-sponsored groups.

She participated in an E4E video, along with other teachers, supporting a group that promotes high-stakes testing, evaluation of teachers by test scores, charter schools, etc., all in the name of “civil rights” and “excellence.”

She believed in their promises, she thought they were sincere in wanting the best for all students.

Then she listened in to a phone conversation and was stunned by what she heard.

She realized that she was part of a “team” that was working to protect John Deasy.

She realized that she did not share the goals of the larger group, which consisted of some 51 organizations.

And she quit.

Read here to find out why.

Here is a sample of what she heard and why she quit:

Long story short, these folks made a huge showing outside the morning Board meeting, while 35,000 union members were busy serving the needs of our youth. It was a much needed wake-up call. I began to realize the extent of the ignorance and hubris that fuels many ed-reform decisions, as well as the extent of my own ignorance. The addition of businessmen and socialites to a board I sat on made sense suddenly, as did their posturing and pronouncements. If you’ve ever heard people mis-speaking about things you know intimately, or talking about you when they thought you weren’t listening, you know how pained I was and still am. I couldn’t speak then and have just found the words, now.

Some of the groups in the pro-Deasy rally – Students First, Green Dot, KIPP LA – were to be expected, although they have no business in LAUSD’s superintendent evaluation. Others made me gag in wonder – Goodwill of Southern California? Inner-City Struggle? LA Education Partnership? I thought we were friends!

They weren’t talking about me, personally, but they clearly saw themselves as supporting their hero, a hero whose arch-enemy is my union, UTLA. It was, and is, very difficult to understand why they need to draw a protective circle in the sand around John Deasy. (Speculation is rampant, but facts are hard to come by). The bottom line for me personally is that there are too many good people distracted by too many superfluous groups. The best place for an educator to protect and promote public education is the teachers’ union. Over time, for better or for worse, the union is the educators’ bastion and it is set up via a democratic process in which any member can participate. If UTLA needs to be more positive and professional, we need to make it that way ourselves, but that’s another story.

What do these people want, for our youth, really? School choice is a wonderful thing for those of us who actively choose – but we all have the sacred obligation to provide a quality public education for all children. This means I could get my own daughter into a magnet school by filling out the applications, kissing principal butt, following through with phone calls and then getting her to the bus stop at oh-dark-thirty; I did that. But I still have a very real obligation to the kids down the street to make sure that our neighborhood school is fully staffed and resourced, and functioning with district support.

Some months ago, I added Steve Nelson to the honor roll of this blog because everything I read by this remarkable man made so much sense. He is the headmaster of the Calhoun School, a fine New York City private school.

Yet he isn’t looking out for the self-interest of the private schools and their pupils, but for the good of American children and our society.

In this article, Nelson surveys the media moaning over PISA scores and says that the critics have chosen the wrong target.

Our schools are not broken, he writes.

Our society is.

Here is a sample of his thinking, which I share and admire:

We don’t have an education problem in America. We have a social disease. It is as though we are starving our children to death and trying to fix it by investing in more scales so we can weigh them constantly.

Charter schools, Common Core, voucher programs, online education, Teach for America… None of these initiatives, whether financially-motivated opportunism or sincere effort at reform, will make a dent in our educational malaise, because the assumptions are wrong.

As is often the case in our “blame the victim” culture, it is generally believed that improving education will cure poverty. This invites the inference that poor education created poverty. But it is simply not true. Poverty created poor education. The victim blamers cite lazy children and bad parenting as contributors to poverty. But poverty dulls motivation and cripples parents.

And perhaps worst of all, the poor performance of our students is attributed to poor teaching and unions. I propose that today’s teachers (even the underprepared Teach For America kind) are as good or better than teachers were a generation ago. Neither they nor their weakened unions are the cause of our education problems.

It is also asserted that our place in the global economy is threatened by the poor quality of American education. But this is also backwards. Our place in the global economy threatens education, not the other way around. In the service of economic global dominance, we have sacrificed families and schools.

But we persist in our misguided efforts to “fix” education nonetheless. Education reform has been underway for many years, most energetically since No Child Left Behind was enacted in 2001. I challenge any reader to provide comprehensive evidence that education has improved since then.

And I would add, though nothing need be added, that “school reform” has become a Great Distraction, a way of NOT addressing the root causes of low academic performance.

That may explain why so many billionaires and corporations love to invest in “school reform,” because it is so much more cost efficient than doing something about income inequality and wealth inequality, which are worst than at any point in the past century.

But again, Nelson says it better than I could. He writes:

Raise the minimum wage to a real living wage. Provide affordable health care for every family. End the regressive tax system that has eviscerated local communities. Provide disincentives to the multi-national corporations that have abandoned American communities while chasing the cheapest labor overseas. Put Americans to work with bold infrastructure investment. Extend the meager unemployment benefits that keep many families out of abject poverty. Stop pretending that racism is dead. Instead of telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, remove the boot heels of oppression.

Let’s do these things for a decade, and then we’ll talk about PISA scores.

Wendy Lecker, a civil rights attorney in Connecticut, remembers when Connecticut Governor Dannell Malloy was a champion for equitable funding.

But no longer.

He recently spoke at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and boasted about the success of his “reform” program.

According to Lecker:

At his AEI speech, Malloy shockingly dismissed the need to provide all children with educational opportunities as “old rhetoric.” His focus is not on educational opportunity, he claimed, but rather “educational success.” Malloy trumpeted his 2012 education “reform” legislation as providing the path to educational success.

Contrary to Malloy’s contention, educational opportunity is not just “old rhetoric.” The concept of educational opportunity has a specific constitutional meaning in Connecticut. Under our constitution, Connecticut must provide all children with “suitable educational opportunities.” Connecticut’s highest court has defined those opportunities as schools with sufficient resources to provide an education that prepares Connecticut’s children to participate in democratic institutions, attain productive employment and otherwise to contribute to the state’s economy, or to progress on to higher education.

As mayor of Stamford, Malloy understood the constitutional significance of educational opportunity. He was a founding member of theCCJEF coalition and one of the original plaintiffs in the suit demanding the state fulfill its legal obligation to provide fair and adequate funding to all Connecticut public schools.

Two days after Malloy spoke to AEI, a judge in Connecticut denied Malloy’s motion to dismiss the court case that he had helped initiate on behalf of fairness.

Malloy has abandoned his commitment to equality of education opportunity and now relies on high-stakes testing, evaluation of teachers by test scores, and ample funding to charter schools as the reforms that can take the place of equitable funding.

He even appointed a co-founder of the state’s leading charter chain as his state commissioner of education.

In his re-election campaign, Governor Malloy can count on the financial support of some of the wealthiest equity investors in the nation, who live in sheltered enclaves in places like Greenwich and Darien and support charter advocacy organization like ConnCAN.

Lecker writes:

In his motion to dismiss the CCJEF case, Malloy claimed there was no need to continue with this case because his 2012 education reforms cured all the constitutional deficiencies in Connecticut’s educational system. The judge disabused the governor of the fantasy that his reforms have actually improved Connecticut’s schools. He ruled that Malloy and the state presented no evidence to prove that his 2012 reforms were enacted to correct the constitutional inadequacies of Connecticut’s educational system or state school funding.

Malloy’s 2012 education legislation was not designed to provide Connecticut’s children with equal educational opportunity. As he admitted in his AEI speech, educational opportunity is no longer the governor’s focus. He would rather push unproven “reforms” that bear no relationship to what our highest court and our constitution recognize that our children need.

Another incredible claim made by Malloy at the AEI appearance was that his 2012 education legislation, for the first time in Connecticut history, directed copious amounts of money to Connecticut’s neediest districts.

A few hard numbers may help bring Malloy back to this planet. According to CCJEF’s expert’s analysis, updated to 2012 dollars, East Hartford’s school district is owed $6,131 per child in state funding. Malloy’s 2012 legislation gave them an increase of $214 per pupil. Bridgeport’s school district is owed $7,505 per child, but only received an increase of $209 per pupil in the 2012 legislation. The state owes New Britain’s children $10,185 per student. The 2012 legislation provided them with a whopping $245 per pupil increase. The list goes on and on. Moreover, as a condition for each tiny increase in ECS funding, these districts were saddled with costly mandates.

By contrast, charter schools, which educate 1 percent of Connecticut’s public school children and 90 percent of which serve a less needy population than their host districts, received an increase of $2,600 per pupil over three years in the 2012 legislation. Diverting state funding to 1 percent of public school children, who are often not the neediest, is likely to increase educational resource inequity in the state, especially when our neediest schools are getting so little.

 

Reader Sharon Sanders posted this comment:

 

The intentional destruction of our economy and educational system has been perpetrated by libertarians, right-wing and religious extremists, as well as corporatists, who want every last penny for themselves and their doctrines through private prisons, charter schools, private armies, a biased corporate media– everything, while they ship our factories and jobs overseas. There can be no economy and no way out of poverty until America rises up and realizes what’s being done to them. There can be no economy without jobs. Now there are few jobs except low-paying ones where people must work two or three to make ends meet, forcing children to grow up without adult supervision and time to care for, help them, and love them. It’s all intentional.

These multinational corporations are determined that only the elite few shall be well-educated–after all, no one else can afford good college educations today. They want to profit from phony standards for schools, unaccountable charter schools, while they dismantle collective bargaining rights and pensions, not only from teachers, but from every workerr in this country and overseas. We will have no country ever again worth two cents until and unless these greedy corporatists are forced to keep their hands out of our schools, until we give each and every child the right to the best education possible with excellent thinking skills, challenges, necessary facts, real history, civics, building a base of knowledge and critical thinking for the future. I’m afraid these extremists have so overtaken our country, that there may be no turning back–but we must keep fighting. I taught at a time when creativity and thinking and knowledge were highly regarded and excellent public schools were respected.