Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

A comment on the corporate reformers who say they want to attract “the best and brightest” into teaching:

“Attract the “Best and the Brightest” – please !!! I have 2 masters and have taught for 18years – in Miami – I make less than $44,000 … . Thanks Jeb – teachers are now starving and losing their homes in Miami

* was told last week we may get a big $2000 – $4,000 dollar raise … Please, after FL teachers have taken past cuts that combined equal 1 year pay – thanks
I lost my house because for 4 years I did not get a Salary step increase”

A reader attended my presentation last night at Politics& Prose, a great DC bookstore that regularly hosts authors p. y
The reader explains that the reform movement ignores science, which dooms it to failure:

“Dear Diane, As a loyal follower of your blog I enjoyed your last evening’s visit to Politics and Prose in D.C. I would like to add, because I am a Professor of Neurology, Pediatrics and Psychiatry with 40 years of research into developmental disabilities of the “mild/nearly normal variety” ( allowing me huge control groups of typically developing children) that all of the initialives of the last nearly 15 years, not only Common Core, are failing also because they ignore the brains of developing children and all learning theories relevant to education. Because their eyes are on “benchmarks” they mistakenly think that pushing skills earlier at every level will hit the testing “benchmarks,” so they are entirely unrealistic about developmental readiness and essentially do the equivalent of “trying to get blood from a stone.” Gesell Institute experts addressed this, as cited in your blog, for early childhood. And it is equally true of starting middle school too early, giving homework too early in the school career, and starting Algebra in seventh grade, all of which reflect ignorance of where the executive functions of the majority of children are/are not ready for more time management, materiel management, organization/prioritization of study, and so forth. Needless to say, being neurodevelopmentally ill equipped to tackle skills thrown at them leads to hatred of school, anxiety and depression about themselves, and longlasting damage, even in affluent “good” schools. This ignoring of the developmental appropriateness of demands for skills at every step K-12 has worsened what were the “good” public school systems and certainly carry part of the blame for “failure to thrive” in those schools in which, as you so eloquently expressed last evening, poverty, instability and cultural deprivation carry the majority of the variance in which schools “succeed” and which “fail.” Do you think it would do any good to carry this message to the ignorant test obsessed “reformers” so that even complacently good schools can see the harm done to developing children and adolescents, how we are literally pushing more of them over the “learning disabled” border by “racing to the top” as much as with “no child left behind” ?”

This news item appeared in Politico.com:

ED REFORMERS MEET IN BOSTON — More than 800 state legislators, school chiefs and policy wonks of every description will convene today in Boston for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s annual National Summit on Education Reform. The two-day conference will feature several big-name speakers, including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and a mystery guest that summit organizers have kept secret to build suspense… though (spoiler alert!) your Morning Education team hereby unveils him as Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The summit features panels on everything from vocational education to pre-K to a strategy session on how to sell ed reform to the public. Added at the last minute: A panel at which top execs from four big companies, including Microsoft and Exxon Mobil, make the case for Common Core. Watch for updates from the conference from Pro Education’s Stephanie Simon.

I have often speculated that there were not enough ed reformers to fill a large ballroom.

Well, here they are, and they say there will be 800 of them! 800 people determined to privatize public education in America and get rid of the education profession.

A bipartisan group too! No surprise there. Arne Duncan, Joel Klein, Condoleeza Rice, and Jeb Bush have been on the same page for years. And of course Rahm Emanuel has gone to the head of the pack because he succeeded in closing a history-breaking record number of 50 public elementary schools, to be replaced by 52 non-union charter schools.

Yes, they definitely need a “strategy session” to figure out how to sell privatization, teacher-bashing, and school closings to the public. It is not working anywhere.

And no surprise that the nation’s biggest corporations will give a panel on why we need Common Core, instead of a panel in which they explain why they have outsourced millions of jobs to low-wage countries. In this country, they can’t seem to find anyone willing to work for $10 a day. That is their problem.

Hope is on the way, Boston. I will be speaking at Memorial Church in Harvard Yard on October 24, sponsored by Citizens for Public Schools. I have no corporate sponsorship, but I will arrive with plenty of pins to burst the reformy bubbles.

Recently I posted David Sirota’s article about the super-wealthy who are taking children as “hostages” in their big to take over public education itself. Sirota looked at events in Denver, Los Angeles, and New York City.

That article prompted this response from Los Angeles:

 

 

David Sirota’s article couldn’t be more apt for what has happened in LA. We were blitzkrieged by this outside financing to the point where they have a stranglehold on just about EVERY decision that effects the livelihood of teachers and most importantly, the quality and scope of education the children receive.

I’ll leave it to others to discuss how Eli Broad has financed so much of Deasy’s tenure at LAUSD and how he managed to get not only Deasy, but others of his “academy” appointed to the highest echelons of power in our woe-begotten district. I will talk about one example of their attempt to control the media.

In Los Angeles, we have a web based objective journal that purports to report about LAUSD and the issues that surround it. It is called LA SCHOOL REPORT. It is completely financed by Jamie Alter Lynton. This paper has been a tremendous cheerleader for the School Reform Movement in general and Superintendent John Deasy in particular.

This is an excerpt from a letter on their site that questioned its role as “objective” in the iPad debacle. They took down this letter immediately:

But it is VERY HARD to forget so many pieces that have appeared in LA SCHOOL REPORT and who Ms. Alter Lynton is and her past history when dealing with Mr. Deasy and the School Reform Movement. Fair-minded people will debate what is the correct direction for national education in general and LAUSD in particular, but Ms. Alter Lynton has made her alliance quite obvious. LA SCHOOL REPORT was never “objective”. The reporters who have contributed here and in the LA WEEKLY have made their opinions in their coverage well-known. People who read this site should be well aware of Ms. Alter Lynton’s past words and deeds in the School Reform Movement and how she has used LA SCHOOL REPORT as her mouthpiece.

Most often referred to as a “philanthropist”, Ms. Alter Lynton gave $100,000 (very few people I know have that kind of money that they can just “donate” to their food and rent let alone a political organization) to Los Angeles Fund for Public Education to back Karen Anderson over Steve Zimmer in the spring’s school board election. She also supported Antonio Sanchez over Monica Ratliff.

Married to the chief executive of Sony Pictures Entertainment, Ms. Alter Lynton enjoys tremendous city-wide clout and has deep financial and political connections that opens a wide swath of influence in the Los Angeles, Sacramento and DC stratosphere that ordinary people could never hope to gain that sort of access.

In an article in THE LA TIMES by Howard Blume on September 15, 2011
(http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/15/local/la-me-schools-fund-20110915), we read about her efforts to raise $200 million dollars for the public schools…”Donations could support districtwide initiatives, such as a new training program for principals, among other things. They could also bring to the district effective approaches used at charter schools, said spokeswoman Amanda Crumley.”

This is the portion of the Blume article that is DIRECTLY RELEVANT to Sirota’s article. It is so grotesque that these people CELEBRATE their anti-democratic use of money and the sway they know they can influence because of their wallets. The article continues….

“One selling point for participants is that the elected L A. Board of Education would have no direct control over the money.”

“As you know, the innovation Los Angeles’ students need cannot start within a rule-bound bureaucracy,” the letter states.

Key education donors have refused to give much, if anything, to L.A. Unified because they question how well the nation’s second-largest school system would use the money.

L.A. Unified, like other districts, has been hard hit by state funding shortfalls, resulting in thousands of layoffs, larger class sizes and a shorter school year.

Deasy, who became superintendent in mid-April, has made pursuing outside support a high priority.

Before joining L.A. Unified a year ago, Deasy was a top official at the Seattle-based Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropic organization and one that has focused on education.

Deasy also attended the superintendents academy of local philanthropist Eli Broad, whose foundation, like the Gateses’, has given little to L.A. Unified. The Broad and Gates foundations have generally awarded grants to Los Angeles-area charter schools instead of the L.A. schools system. Charters are public schools that are independently run.”

Ms. Alter Lynn’s support for Deasy is, well, almost messianic. On April 26, 2013, wrote her own worry about the District, the upcoming School Board election and the “hard line” the union was taking on Deasy and her perceived harm they were doing education. http://laschoolreport.com/commentary-a-dangerous-game-for-utla/#more-7894

Ms. Alter Lynton wrote: “As the intransigence and fervor of the union deepens, its stated core mission — to fight for teachers’ rights — puts it further and further from what we should all be talking about: How do we best serve the interest of students?

Imagine this in terms of a baseball team: What if, instead of managers setting lineups, the players union was allowed to mandate that the pitching rotation should be based solely on seniority? What if they decided that stats or behavior couldn’t be used to determine when to make a trade? Would we expect that team to win?

The analogy goes only so far, but it points to the deep conflict of interest created when a school board is put in place by the union it then must bargain with on teacher contracts. Can board members with strong ties to the union and its campaign dollars be expected to make an independent decision about the superintendent? It’s a question worth asking. The board already has a vocal contingent of members supported by the union, and it could add another in the May election.”

In the same spirit of Sirota’s article, the letter to LA SCHOOL REPORT countered, how can Superintendent Deasy who has such strong ties to Eli Broad, Bill Gates, charter schools, the school testing complex and a management style that is secretive, manipulative and bullying be expected to make the right decisions for what’s best for “the kids”. Ms. Alter Lynton has every right to create this site and advocate for whatever she wants. Rich people have always had that tremendous privilege. That is why those who own the media like Rupert Murdoch, the owners of The LA Times, The Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post have mostly ALWAYS sided with Michelle Rhee/John Deasy sort of superintendents because they love their brashness, their head long charge into interfering with the art of teaching, their gushing enthusiasm of metrics/testing/evaluations that they can’t back up with ANY scientific data…but can be justified when you throw in the words “Civil Rights” in your attacks on detractors. Oh, and “defending the status quo” and “no sense of urgency” are also helpful. Oh, and go after the unions as impediments to…”the welfare of the children”.

Imagine if I were to use this phrase that Superintendent Deasy has used so often when talking about teachers, but turned it on him instead: “I will never apologize for anything I do to protect a child from the abuse of this Superintendent.”

Deasy is a master of shutting down an argument by wrapping himself up in grandiose, self-righteousness on almost ANY issue that calls into question his competence and motivation. Go back and look at LA SCHOOL REPORT since its inception and it has almost always backed Deasy and his methodologies because of the money that finances this site.

In closing, I still have no idea whether LA SCHOOL REPORT will continue to be THE CHINA DAILY of LAUSD. I wish I had more confidence in this site, but what has ALWAYS been lacking is a sense of true investigative journalism. Yes, you can say you have “broken” a few LAUSD stories in the past, but they are really only an inch deep when you don’t push for answers. It is not enough to just report information or some press release from someone or an organization.

No. The letter is not public. In fact, LA SCHOOL REPORT now seems to censor letters that challenge its “legitimacy”. It is definitely not a journalism site, but another bought and paid for LAUSD, INC. steamroller.

It is so awful when money is used to HARM children in the name of “Civil Rights” when profits for those who bankroll their endeavors makes others very rich. Worse when it comes from people who believe themselves socially liberal, but are light years removed from the classroom as they yell from their cavier-ladden tables about how THEY KNOW how to fix the system.

The public education system in LA is really a marionette performance.

I can’t begin to summarize the emotional impact of this 4 minute speech by Letitia James, who will soon be the Public Advocate of New York City. She recently won a run-off election to be the #2 ranked official in the city. Her election in November is a foregone conclusion.

As you will see in the video, she is a fierce advocate for public schools and for children with special needs. She is a powerful critic of charter co-locations. If you thought that Karen Lewis of the CTU was a firebrand, wait until you meet Letitia James.

In this 4-minute clip, she roasts Mayor Bloomberg’s compliant “Panel on Education Policy” for having police in the hearing room; for permitting separate-but-equal schools; for co-locating privileged charter schools into buildings with under-resourced public schools. She says, in a fiery tone, get ready for the lawsuits! Save your emails! 77 days to go and it will be a new day in New York City,

As of today, 76 days to go.

Steve Duin is an excellent writer for The Oregonian.

In this column, he tries to wade through the semantics and mathematical formulae of the state accountability system.

He can’t make sense of it. No one can.

Is it fair to compare these two schools on “growth” measures?

Crane Union and Lincoln are considered demographically comparable high schools, even though Crane is a rural, Title 1 boarding school with 69 students, and Lincoln a sprawling urban high school with a student body of 1,471.

State officials twist and turn and do somersaults but the bottom line is the nation’s obsession with “accountability” is insane.

Schools are not in the business of manufacturing widgets or toothbrushes or tennis balls or chewing gum.

Every child is different.

The tests do not define what matters most in school or in life.

Someday, sanity will return to education policy.

It will come when parents get angry, because they boo and hiss and make noise when state officials tell them their child is failing and their school will be closed.

It will come when parents–the sleeping giant–wake up and burst the bubbles of the data-obsessed robots now running  our state education departments and school districts.

Demand that they visit the schools. Demand that they look every child in their eyes and tell them they are failures.

Make the leaders accountable for the damage they are doing to our children and our schools and our society.

Jeff Bryant at the Education Opportunity Network is not a critic of Common Core. He is a thoughtful observer.

In this brilliant post, he shows that the worst enemies of Common Core are its advocates.

Why are kindergarten children given standardized tests? Why are teachers compelled to follow scripted curricula? Why are teachers and parents’ voices disregarded? Why the rush? Why the gloating over lower test scores?

None of this makes any sense. Friends of Common Core need to step back, calm down, listen to teachers, think of ways to make revisions, stop the testing until there has been adequate professional development, sufficient resources, time for children to learn the skills that will be tested, and a curriculum to go with the testing.

Who will pay for the new technology for the testing? Who will grade the essays? Temps from Craig’s List? Testing companies in India? Counters?

the needed changes and planning and implementation won’t take one year. It will probably take three. Maybe five.

Reformers, cool your jets. Do it right or don’t do it at all.

In his review of Reign of Error in Schools Matter, historian and teacher John Thompson contemplates the urgent issue of whether I hurt reformers’ feelings.

To be precise, the question posed by his review is “Should Diane Ravitch Be More Careful to Not Hurt Reformers’ Feelings?”

This is an interesting question that I have pondered these past few weeks, indeed, for the past few years.

It is true. I heard from a mutual friend (well, not so much a friend anymore) that Bill Gates was very hurt by my comments about his effort to remake American education.

He frankly could not understand how anyone could question his good intentions.

Actually I have never questioned his intentions, but I certainly question his judgement and his certainty that he can “fix” education by creating metrics to judge teachers.

He recently said that it would take a decade to find out whether “this stuff” works; in the meanwhile, teachers and principals are losing their jobs, schools are being closed, communities are being shattered–because Bill Gates got a new idea that he wanted to try out using human subjects.

I have also heard from other sources that reformers say I am “mean” or “harsh” when I say that some “reformers” have a profit motive or that their grand plans actually hurt poor minority children instead of helping them.

They are baffled that I do not admire their efforts to create charters and vouchers to allow poor kids to “escape” public schools.

I confess that I was not aware of their feelings.

As a historian, I wasn’t really thinking about their feelings.

I was thinking about the consequences  of their actions.

I was thinking about purposeful efforts to dismantle public education.

I was thinking about the constant repetition of the blatant lie that American public education is a failure.

One of the things that a historian tries to do is to correct the record. When people say things again and again, even though these things are not true, it is the job of the historian to tell the truth. If others disagree, they should put their facts on the table too.

Historians understand that debate and dissent are part of the work of understanding history.

There is not one truth, but on the other hand, you can’t just make up facts and narratives, hire a fancy PR firm, and rewrite history to suit yourself.

Are there profiteers in the business of school reform? Yes, indeed, and I document their activities amply in the book.

Meanwhile, dear reformers, please know that I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.

I just wanted to let you know that your efforts to create a dual system of publicly funded schools turns back the clock to the shameful era before the Brown decision.

And I wanted you to know that your reliance on standardized testing is a grand mistake.

I urge everyone of you to take the tests that you think are the measure of all students and publish your scores.

If you won’t take the test, if you fear the results, don’t be so vigorous in using them to label children and evaluate teachers.

And please know that your speculative plans are not “hurting the feelings” of teachers and principals, they are ruining their careers, ruining their reputations, doing real and tangible damage to the lives of real people.

Their feelings are not hurt by your theoretical reforms. Their lives are.

Crack investigative journalist David Sirota takes a close look at the gangster tactics that billionaires are using in New York City, D.C, and Denver.

This article will be “unlocked” on its website for only 9 hours more.

Please read it NOW.

Consider subscribing to NSFWCORP, which specializes in investigative reporting.

 

Hostage-Taking In The Classroom

By David Sirota

Dispatch unlocked: Subscriber Chris E-A unlocked this and it will remain available until 9 hours from now.

Become a NSFWCORP Subscriber today.

Subscribers can login for access to all NSFWCORP content.

For all the hype about America’s renewed obsession with zombies, the walking dead have lost their status as the favored metaphor du jour. A quarter century after the Iran standoff and seven months after “Argo” won the Oscar for best picture, the preferred metonym is now the hostage, in all his metaphorically hogtied and blindfolded glory.

Over on the East Coast, for instance, Washington politicians and news bureaus are colluding on “Government Shutdown” – an epic multi-day television miniseries of political pirates, ransom demands and overwrought hostage cliches. Over on the Left Coast, Hollywood is set to capitalize on the zeitgeist with its own scripted look at piracy and hostages called “Captain Phillips.”

Meanwhile, few have noticed that off camera, the ascendant hostage meme has quietly transformed from insipid political shorthand and fleeting pop culture fad into the day-to-day governing ideology of the ultimate symbol of Americana: the schoolhouse.

In this standoff, the hostages are public school children. They are being held captive not by a rag tag bunch of Somali buccaneers nor by Tea Party loons with that distinctly wild-eyed serial killer look in their eyes. No, a generation of youngsters is being held instead by pinstriped corporate executives, buttoned-down foundation officers and the local school board officials those aristocrats buy and sell.

Reminiscent of Hans Gruber’s high-class crew, this smooth-talking team of bandits is armed with billions of dollars of “charitable” – and therefore tax-subsidized – cash from both brand-name corporate behemoths and individual plutocrats like Microsoft’s Bill Gates, insurance magnate Eli Broad, media titan Michael Bloomberg, Enron billionaire John Arnold and Wal-Mart’s Walton family. With school districts refusing to adequately fund their education systems, and with a tax code boosting the plutocrats’ anti-public-school activism, this rogues gallery is now calling the shots – and demanding ransom. If a community pays the ransom by letting these distant marauders do what they want to the local school, then the perpetrators won’t purposely harm any hostages, even though their policies may inadvertently maim a bunch. But if a community defies these moguls’ wishes, then open threats against the cute little hostages commence.

The commercial application of this extortion scheme is straightforward. In shock-doctrine-like fashion, the corporate community that typically lobbies against higher taxes to fund schools makes a business opportunity out of schools’ subsequent budget crises. Specifically, corporations offer cash to budget-strapped school districts, claiming they are motivated by an altruistic desire to help preserve educational services for the community. But the cash is often contingent on letting those corporations use the public school to advertise products to those kids. If education officials later realize it is a bad idea to turn schools into corporate advertising weapons aimed at captive child audiences, then – poof! – the hostages are harmed as the corporate funding vanishes.

Less straightforward but equally insidious is the concurrent extortion scheme run by politically motivated foundations. More interested in making local schools petri dishes for their half-baked “free market” experiments and their ideological crusades against unions, these foundations masquerade as apolitical charities, while using their vast tax-subsidized resources to strengthen the already outsized political power of their namesake benefactors.

Three of the best examples come from Washington, D.C., New York City and my home city of Denver, Colorado.

Washington, D.C.: “It’s Not a Democracy”

Thanks to the boom in lobbying and government contracting, the nation’s capital is no longer a town of middle-class bureaucrats – it is now one of the wealthiest places on Earth, and one of the planet’s most unequal cities. With the Beltway’s rich typically sending their kids to private havens like Sidwell Friends, the D.C. public school system ends up serving a disproportionately low-income student population, which means it needs a lot of money if it has any chance of succeeding. That’s because economic status is such an enormous factor in educational achievement and because successfully combating poverty’s deleterious effect on educational achievement requires extra resources for “wraparound” services. To help raise that capital, private foundations in recent years swooped in with resources.

It sounded great – suddenly, there seemed to be no need to raise taxes on the cash-bloated multinational corporations stationed in D.C. The celebrated philanthrocapitalists were in the nation’s capital to save the day! Except for one problem: the foundation money came with an implicit and then-unprecedented threat. Championing the punitive, unproven and often counterproductive pedagogical agenda of standardized testing, draconian school shutdowns, mass teacher firings and union-busting charter schools, the conservative foundations gave Washington, D.C. residents the hostage-taker’s ultimatum: if they and their democratically elected city councilors did not obediently submit to the corporate “reform” agenda of then-Chancellor Michelle Rhee, then there would be consequences. More specifically, if they ever removed Rhee from her public office, then the foundation money would be summarily withdrawn, and kids would be harmed.

Backed by these corporate heavies, Rhee told residents who were critical of her destructive and cheating-plagued term that when it comes to public education policy in her city, “It’s not a democracy.” The result of the hostage taking thuggery? As PBS Frontline reported, after Rhee’s tenure, Washington is “still among the worst in the nation and D.C.’s high school graduation rate dead last.” And yet while the hostages suffered, Rhee has been handsomely rewarded for her loyalty to the hostage takers, as the same plutocrats bequeathed her a high-paying job and a well-financed corporate front group all for herself.

New York: King Bloomberg’s Permanent Reign

In New York, a different but equally harsh hostage situation has been engineered in order to guarantee the permanent dominance of outgoing billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s agenda, even after Hizzoner leaves office. The billionaire media titan and his cronies want to cement his polarizing agenda of demonizing teachers and promoting union-busting charter schools, even though those schools often deliver worse results than traditional schools. As the Wall Street Journal reports (emphasis added):

The fundraising arm of the New York City public-school system brought in a record $47 million in pledges in the past year, a sign that donors want to extend the effects of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s policies past the end of his third term…

While the fund has paid for some traditional projects—such as grants for libraries and after-school programs—it has also quietly bankrolled potentially controversial pilots of new curriculum standards, teacher evaluations and the School of One, an experimental method of using technology to teach math.

Using private money instead of tax dollars enabled the mayor and chancellor, who were wrangling with the United Federation of Teachers in court and on the airwaves, to sidestep controversy while experimenting with new methods. But some critics say this process still cuts out public participation…

“It adds yet another layer of distance between open public decision-making processes and how policies are set in the district,” said Sarah Reckhow, an assistant professor in urban politics and education at Michigan State University.

“Experimenting with new methods” is Wall Street Journal-ese for anti-union aristocrats like Bloomberg using children as pawns in an ideological scheme to turn more of the public school system into union-free – and failing – charter schools.

If that wasn’t bad enough, get this: though the Journal notes that the Bloomberg-aligned fund finances programs in public schools, “is located inside Education Department headquarters, and the schools chancellor is its chairman,” its executives nonetheless refuse to release basic information about who is donating and what it is actually funding. In other words, inside a public school system already plagued by corporate cronyism and a grotesque revolving door culture, there exists a secret privately financed slush fund that is permitted to operate without any public scrutiny at all.

Slush fund officials defend this as an earnest commitment “to safeguarding donors’ privacy” – but such saccharine platitudes obscure bareknuckled political motivations. Basically, Bloomberg and his rich buddies don’t like the idea of local communities – especially in liberal pro-union New York City – having control over the city’s schools. Thus, they’ve make a two-fer opportunity out of the city’s inadequately funded public school system. Knowing city schools are already being held hostage by meager budgets, they make huge “charitable” donations to the public education system, but make the money contingent on a two-pronged ransom demand: 1) they insist their ideological agenda be followed regardless of whether it actually improves educational results and 2) they insist their specific funding priorities being implemented by the public school system but without any democratic input from the public that is supposed to be controlling that system.

Acquiesce and the hostages are helped. Ask questions and the child hostages are made to suffer.

Denver: Explicit Threats to Harm Kids

Before you can understand the education hostage-taking in the Mile High City, you have to understand that the Denver Public School system is enmeshed in a thick web of corruption. In fact, even calling it a web is wrong. The school system here (as I first learned when my wife ran for school board a few years ago) is more accurately described as being covered in a rancid blob of radical ideology and corporate “reform” propaganda – one that has delivered tragic academic results. This blob is so massive it is hard to know where the private sector stops and the public sector begins.

One way to see this blob is to just behold the absurd amounts of corporate and right-wing money that have been spent to buy the city’s recent school board elections. Though school board positions are unpaid, the typical Denver school elections now feature CEOs throwing $25,000 checks at candidates who pledge to suck ever-more public money out of public schools and plow it into the privately run charter school industry – the same industry that has an illustrious history of discriminating against children with special needs.

Another way to see this blob is to look at the school board’s breathtaking self-dealing and its rampant conflicts of interest. For example, its current president is paid by a private foundation whose stated goal is to put more public money into privately run charter schools. The board’s immediate past president resigned to go work for a private education foundation that does business with the school district. Another of its board members runs a foundation that gets money from the school district. A previous board member went from the board to run a group looking to bring more corporate influence into the school system. And now another leading candidate for a board vacancy, the pro-voucher former lieutenant governor Barbara O’Brien, says that even if she wins the board seat, she will ignore concerns about self-dealing and remain the paid executive director of a pro-charter foundation to which the school board gives public money.

Considering this hideous record, it is hardly shocking that this same school board a few years ago agreed to a Wall Street financing scheme so corrupt it landed on the front page of the New York Times. Orchestrated by then-superintendent Michael Bennet after a stint as a corporate raider for right-wing billionaire Phil Anschutz, the scheme enriched the financial industry that later bankrolled Bennet’s U.S. Senate campaign. It also blew a $177 million hole in the school system’s budget at a time when that system was already being crushed by the state’s pathetic education funding levels. That’s when – on cue – the plutocratic ideologues waltzed in to Denver, publicly portraying themselves as benevolent saviors, but privately brandishing political axes.

As the Denver Post reports, since just 2009, “DPS has received $77 million in gifts and grants from private foundations, corporations and individuals” – much of it with ideological strings attached. Bill Gates’ foundation, for example, gave the public schools $10 million. The cash was given in exchange for the school board’s guarantee that the schools would build a punitive teacher “evaluation” system that conservatives hope will help blame teachers for the school system’s systemic problems and then create the rationale to bust the teachers’ union.

Likewise, the Walton Foundation gave $8 million to help the city’s public schools with budget shortfalls, in exchange for the board reclassifying more traditional public schools as “innovation” schools. To the notoriously anti-union Walton family, that was a great political victory, as the “innovation” classification allows the board to tear up a school’s union contract and make teacher’s at-will employees.

Not surprisingly, many people in the city are today sufficiently pissed off about what’s been going on. So with another board election coming up in just a few weeks, the public threats to harm the hostages have begun.

These aren’t just any old threats couched in sententious language, mind you. As a recent piece in the alt-weekly Westword showed, these are egregiously explicit and menacing promises to harm children. In that article, investment banking aristocrat Bruce Hoyt – shocker! a former Denver school board member – issued this stunningly brazen threat to voters:

Hoyt also points out that the district has received millions of dollars in grant money from national foundations over the past several years “because people have such confidence in our reforms.” If the district switches directions, “I could see a lot of that money drying up and causing budgetary problems for DPS,” he says.

The message from this politically connected financial industry snake is clear: if Denver voters dare even think about challenging the destructive privatization agenda in their own school system, corporate foundations will exact even more painful revenge against the city’s children.


There are, of course, plenty of other examples of this hostage-taking extortion. In New Jersey, for example, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg gave Newark Mayor Cory Booker a secret education slush fund. Booker somehow found time away from leveraging his office for personal cash to then use the money to neuter the local school board and weaken the teacher’s union. At the same time, down the road in Trenton, following foundations’ efforts to strongarm voters into keeping particular politicians in public office, insurance kingpin Eli Broad’s foundation threatened to cut off its education funding for the state’s kids if voters dare vote anti-union Gov. Chris Christie out of office.

Across the country in Los Angeles, the hostage taking tactics are even more invasive, as they operate at both the political level and at the school personnel level. As Dissent magazine’s Joanne Barkan recounts in her recent must-read article:

Private foundations have used another tactic to exert influence on the Los Angeles Unified School District: they paid the salaries of more than a dozen senior staffers. According to the Los Angeles Times, the privately financed “public” employees worked on such ed-reform projects as new systems to evaluate teachers and collect immense amounts of data on students. Much of the money came from the Wasserman Foundation ($4.4 million) and the Walton Family Foundation ($1.2 million); Ford and Hewlett made smaller grants. The Broad Foundation covered the $160,000 salary of Matt Hill to run the district’s Public School Choice program, which turned so-called low-performing and new schools over to private operators. Hill had worked in Black & Decker’s business development group before he went through one of the Broad Foundation’s uncertified programs to train new education administrators.

A Times editorial on January 12, 2010 asked, sensibly, “At what point do financial gifts begin reshaping public decision-making to fit a private agenda?…Even the best-intentioned gifts have a way of shifting behavior. Educators and the public, not individual philanthropists, should set the agenda for schools.”

Once again, the threat is clear: if the community tries to do something other than the foundations want, the foundations will exact financial revenge on kids by pulling funding from the cash-starved school district.

Barkan notes that in all these hostage situations, there is a symbiotic self-reinforcing relationship between corporatists’ anti-tax crusades and their desire to dominate public education policymaking. The less tax revenues that are generated, the less public revenues schools have and the more private foundations can use their money to enact their anti-union, pro-privatization agenda.

“The mega-foundations use their grants as leverage: they give money to grantees who agree to adopt the foundations’ pet policies,” she writes. “Resource-starved states and school districts feel compelled to say yes to millions of dollars even when many strings are attached or they consider the policies unwise. They are often in desperate straits.”

Over time, as this threat-retribution-acquiescence cycle is institutionalized and as corporate campaign contributions cleanse school boards of pro-public-education voices, a kind of Stockholm Syndrome develops in which substantive questions about failed “reform” policies are no longer even asked. Ultimately, the public is removed from its own public education system and faraway moguls turn education policy into their ideological plaything, consequences be damned. Worst of all, the hostages are left to suffer – and have no hope of ever being released.

Subscribers have unrestricted access to all NSFWCORP content, always

Top of Form

Get access to everything we publish, including the full archive, online and in print for just $7 per month. You can cancel at any time, with just a single click.

Payment details Name as it appears on your card  Credit card number

Security code (CVC)

Expiration date /

Shipping address

Street address  Street address 2

City

State/Province/Region

Postal Code

Country

We ship anywhere in the world, free.

Create your account Email  Password (to manage your subscription)    Get our free weekly email newsletter

Bottom of Form

This Dispatch will remain unlocked until 9 hours from now.

 

A reader writes:

“What I would really like to see is Arnie Duncan in a seventh period class, of whatever subject he could be certified in, implementing his signature policies. Only someone who has never taught in a public school could with a straight face implement race to the top. Should add, it would be a good idea if he took a tests-and-measurement class that might help understand the fundamental problems with ranking teachers, ranking schools, or ranking of any kind. I would add, it is extremely difficult to have an intelligent conversation with someone who lacks a fundamental knowledge of the theories, concepts, principles, of a domain they are in charge of — he is the secretary of education, not the secretary of commerce. Mr. Duncan’s elevation, both in Chicago and then to Washington speaks to how powerless the educational profession is. Our profession has been successfully colonized by business goals, vocabulary, and methods. It will take years, maybe decades to recover from the mess Bush and Obama have generated in our schools.”