Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

StudentsFirst and another far-right group called Tennessee Federation for Children are pumping huge amounts of money into state legislative races for candidates who support vouchers and charters.

Tennessee Federation for Children is affiliated with the pro-voucher organization called American Federation for Children, run by billionaire Betsy DeVos of Michigan. AFS honored Michelle Rhee and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin for their efforts on behalf of vouchers in 2010.

This report in the Tessessean says:

The Tennessee PAC affiliated with StudentsFirst, a Sacramento, Calif.-based organization led by former Washington, D.C., Chancellor of Schools Michelle Rhee, has pumped $376,266 into Tennessee this year. That sum includes contributions to a handful of local school board contenders in Nashville and Memphis but far more to candidates seeking state legislative seats. Most of the recipients are Republicans.

StudentsFirst’s Tennessee PAC, formed last year, spent $66,150 in the Volunteer State over the past month alone, according to financial disclosures submitted last week.

During the same four-week time frame, a PAC called Tennessee Federation for Children, a branch of a Washington organization that expanded to Tennessee this spring, accounted for $145,302 in contributions and other expenditures. The group spent $248,539 in Tennessee altogether this year, with money going to direct mail efforts and to pro-voucher candidates.

*************************
When I was in Chattanooga in September this year, a Democratic candidate told me that a campaign gift of $1,000 was considered huge, so you can imagine the power of this kind of money for conservative Republicans and a few rightwing Democrats.

This teacher in Houston reviews what is happening in HISD schools.

Anyone know the HISD superintendent Terry Grier?

The teacher’s evaluation:

Another transplanted North Carolina education experience. I teach in Texas in the largest school district that has inherited one of North Carolina’s education mediums, T. Grier. In his ready, shoot, aim masterplan, all teachers are graded on the growth of their students on a year to year basis, as the statistical junkies decide that growth will be measured on EVAAS- a nonpeer reviewed performance analyis program. This is in addition to a whole slew of other tests. We personally ran into an issue where our social studies students were passing 95% of the tests or higher provided by the State, but when the results did not grow past 95% the teachers were penalized! There is no average of, say, three years performance, or a plateau of achievement where the grading stops, but a slap for high achievement – the District refused to reconsider our highly validated protests.

Teachers were baited with the prospect of “bonus” money, and assumed we were like pipe salepersons who would do more for a bigger payday. A teacher might earn up to $7,000…great, but there have also not been any raises for over 4 years. The bonus money available has been reduced by half, so the District reduced the teachers who could obtain a bonus – no senior level teachers, art, electives, nor foreign language because??? those subjects do NOT have to be tested. In our case, high performance ran into an effective ceiling. So now, bonus money has shrunk, teachers salaries have been reduced, a bait and switch incentive atmosphere has been created. Incentives in business are great, this is not business. Teachers do not get to select inputs and the inputs change, perhaps dramatically, year to year; or we average over 37 kids in a class compared to 30, but that should’nt really effect performance. It defies good science to measure unlike test groups.

Morale in our District is terrible, particularly with the school administrators who cringe when the headquarters decides on some new hoop teachers and students need to jump through. For example, we are supposed to drop students into category buckets within the first month so we can establish their goals…what sense does that make? who knows kids after a month? and then the system crashed, or dropped data or just didn’t work. Nobody holds senior administration accountable.

So fair is fair, how are Grier and the District grading themselves in the Broad competition they flaunt? 1) on the basis of how many kids take the SAT 2) how many kids take Advanced Placement courses and 3) how many more kids graduate. Fine as it goes, but a) the District paid for the SAT for all 10th graders b) it pays for any AP tests and recruited teachers and kids who were completely unprepared for this incredibly rigorous course load (SpEd kids were enrolled in some cases!) and c) created an on-line self paced Grad Lab program that is never backstopped for performance nor any real check on comprehension. There are no effective teacher unions in Texas (no strike state), so no one can blame that factor on Texas’ dismal performance of Houston’s. Maybe it is the super? From North Carolina Greenboro, then San Diego…any comments from other teachers who taught under T. Grier and dealt with the North Carolina experience?

There are critical elections taking place on Tuesday throughout the country that parents, education advocates, and others who care about preserving and strengthening our public schools need to take notice of and cast their ballot appropriately. Out-of-state money from billionaires and astroturf groups like Students First are flowing into state races, like this one in Tennessee and local school board elections, like these in New Orleans and New Jersey, to push damaging policies to privatize and digitize our public schools.

There are also referendums and initiatives on the ballot in many states and cities that will affect the future of our public schools for years to come. In each case, there is tremendous private money being used to facilitate the expansion of charters and vouchers, promote budget cuts, and impose mayoral control, and against allowing elected school boards to protect and support their local public schools. The hedge funders, billionaires, for-profit charter operators, and right-wingers are using their vast resources to impose their political will, and in most cases are dramatically outspending the good government organizations, education advocates, teachers, and other concerned citizens, who would rather save and strengthen our public schools rather than dismantle them.

For example, there are two statewide referendums on charter schools that people need to vote AGAINST. The individuals and groups who are pushing them are outspending the opposition in Georgia twenty to one and in the state of Washington, more than twelve to one. If the privateers win out, it will show how the influence of big money can buy elections in the face of local sentiment and good public policy.

1. In Washington State, parents should vote NO on Initiative 1240, which would authorize charter schools to be established in the state for the first time. Charter schools have already been voted down by the State Legislature six times, including as recently as 2012, and three times by Washington voters. Yet Bill Gates and his cronies remain determined to overturn the popular will, and have contributed nearly $11 MILLION to achieve this end. Gates himself has given more than $3 million to the campaign, Alice Walton of Walmart fame has kicked in another $1.7 million, and Gates’ buddies Paul Allen of Microsoft and the Bezos family at Amazon.com have donated millions more. 91 percent of the funding for the massive campaign of this initiative has come from just ten people, all of them billionaires.

Meanwhile, those opposing the initiative include the Washington State PTA, the State Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, the state Association of School Administrators, the state’s principals, the state teachers union, the Seattle NAACP, El Centro do la Raza, the Seattle Public Schools superintendent and countless school boards. They point out how this initiative would further drain resources from the public schools, which have already been found to be constitutionally underfunded by the courts, and would take accountability out of public hands. The measure would also allow the privatization of any public school as long as 51 percent of parents voted for it, in an even more radical permutation of the so-called Parent Trigger. In the latest poll, the pro-charter supporters are ahead by nearly 20 points because of the “very lopsided advertising campaign” financed by these ten billionaires; don’t let this Initiative pass! For more on 1240, visit the No on 1240 website.

2. In Georgia, parents should vote NO on Amendment 1, which would create an appointed commission with the power to authorize charter schools over the opposition of democratically-elected local school boards and the state Board of Education. This constitutional amendment is opposed by the state PTA, the state School Superintendent, the Georgia School Boards Association, and many civil rights groups, who explain how this measure would divert hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the public schools, and into the hands of for-profit corporations, many of them with a lousy record of the schools they currently run, like K12 Inc. According to one report, these new charter schools would also be eligible to receive more state money per pupil than regular public schools. The vast majority of the contributions financing the amendment are coming from outside the state, mainly from charter operators, Michelle Rhee’s Students First, Alice Walton, the Koch brothers, and other individuals intent on weakening and privatizing public schools. Don’t be fooled: here is an explanation of how the amendment has been misleadingly phrased to trick voters, which has already triggered a lawsuit. For more on why you should vote no on this damaging amendment, see Vote Smart Georgia.

3. In Idaho, parents should vote NO on Propositions 1, 2, and 3: Proposition One would limit the rights of teachers to collectively bargain over working conditions like class size, would effectively eliminate their job security and base their evaluation largely on test scores. Proposition Two would implement damaging and wasteful merit pay. Proposition Three would spend yet more funding on requiring online learning for students, which was passed into law after substantial contributions from for-profit virtual learning companies to the state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna. Many of the same companies, including K12 Inc., have given funds to push this proposition, along with NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who contributed $200,000. Their involvement was only disclosed after a court order demanding that the shadowy group pushing these propositions reveal its donors.

4. In California, parents should vote YES on both Propositions 30 and 38, to enable the state to raise revenue to prevent hugely damaging budget cuts to public schools, which are already critically underfunded. More on this from the group Educate the State. Parents and other concerned citizens should also vote NO on Proposition 32, which would prohibit unions from spending money for political purposes, while exempting Super PACs, hedge-funders, billionaires and thousands of big businesses. The League of Women Voters, among many other good government groups, urges a No vote, as do we.

5. In Arizona, parents should vote YES on Proposition 204, which would make permanent a temporary one percent sales tax, with most of the proceeds going to public schools. Arizona already has seen the most drastic budget cuts to schools in the nation in recent years, resulting in some of the highest class sizes, and its children cannot afford any more cuts to school funding. Supporters of Proposition 204 include the Arizona State PTA, Voices for Education and the Southern Arizona Leadership Council; opponents include the state Chamber of Commerce. For more on this Proposition, see the Quality Education and Jobs website.

6. Finally, voters in Bridgeport CT should Vote NO on changing the city charter to eliminate their elected school board, which would allow their mayor to wield unilateral control through an appointed school board. Earlier last year, the hedge-fund backed, pro-charter lobby group ConnCAN conspired with Teach for America and the mayor of Bridgeport, along with the state’s Governor, to oust Bridgeport’s elected school board in what was essentially an illegal coup. Their actions were later overturned by the courts. So now, the pro-privatization lobby is spending a record amount to impose mayoral control through a referendum, with Michelle Rhee’s Student First contributing $97,000 and Mayor Bloomberg another $20,000.

As Diane Ravitch has pointed out, mayoral control has a lousy record; our analysis shows that two cities under mayoral control, Cleveland and NYC, have made the least progress in raising student achievement since 2003 of any the large urban districts on the national assessments called the NAEPs. Here in NYC, after ten years, mayoral control is hugely unpopular, for we have seen how Bloomberg has ignored the priorities of parents in cutting school budgets, increasing class size, closing neighborhood schools, expanding charters and putting them in existing school buildings where they have squeezed out our public school children. In a poll conducted earlier this year, only 13 percent of New Yorkers said the mayor should retain sole control of the public schools. In Chicago, where mayoral control has existed for 17 years, polls show that the system is equally unpopular: 77 percent of Chicago voters oppose continued mayoral control. In fact, on Tuesday in Chicago, there is an advisory referendum on the ballot, urging the state legislature to allow the city to return to an elected school board.

Kevin Johnson, a former NBA basketball player, who used to run charter schools and who is now mayor of Sacramento and is married to Michelle Rhee, came to Connecticut to campaign for the mayoral control referendum. John Bagley, also a former professional basketball player who is now an elected member of Bridgeport’s school board wrote a great letter to Johnson a week ago, which concluded this way:

“Maybe “KJ” and his `reformers’ can explain why the city of New Haven, which has an appointed board, has more failing schools than Bridgeport. This is true, despite the presence on their appointed Board of Education of the former director of CONNCAN, the Connecticut leader of takeover policies. I have only one final piece of advice for `KJ’, don’t come into my house and mess with my right to vote!”

This is a message we should all take to heart.

Use your vote, Bridgeport residents and all others throughout the nation who care about public education, while you still have it! Do not give up your democratic rights and allow the billionaires who send their own children to private schools to buy these elections so they can dismantle, plunder and privatize your public schools.

Leonie Haimson
Executive Director
Class Size Matters
124 Waverly Pl.
New York, NY 10011
212-674-7320
leonie@classsizematters.org
http://www.classsizematters.org
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonie-haimson

Follow me on twitter @leoniehaimson

Make a tax-deductible contribution to Class Size Matters now!

Subscribe to Class Size Matters news by emailing classsizematters-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe to NYC education news by emailing nyceducationnews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

This is becoming a familiar story: billionaires and millionaires are choosing a school board member in New Orleans. One of the city’s leading charter advocates, Sarah Newell Usdin, is the recipient of more than $110,000, way more than her opponents. Usdin was executive director of New Schools for New Orleans, which received nearly $30 million from the federal government to open charter schools. she also worked for the New Teacher Project and is an alumna of Teach for America. Among her contributors: Joel Klein and hedge fund manager Boykin Curry, both residents of New York City, not New Orleans.

According to the National School Boards Association, 87% of school board members spend less than $5,000 to run for office.

In the most recent state board election, Kira Orange Jones, the director of Teach for America in New Orleans, raised $450,000 in her successful effort to oust an incumbent. She had the support of the Wall Street hedge fund managers’ organization called Democrats for Education Reform. Among her generous contributors: Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Eli Broad, both billionaires who don’t live in Louisiana. Jones’ opponent raised $9,000.

There seems to be a concerted program by DFER and its allies to pour money into local and state school races and issues. The number of contributors is small, but they swamp the local races. The same names pop up again and again. Their agenda is always the same: testing, union-busting, TFA, and privatization.

School board elections in Oakland, California, are usually low-budget races, as they are in most places.

But this year, a PAC has amassed $185,000 to elect its slate of candidates. The California Charter School Association put up $49,995 and two wealthy individuals added nearly $100,000 more for the slate.

Also on the ballot is a $475 million bond issue. If it passes, the board will determine how it is spent.

Critics worry that the slate will favor charters and a privatization agenda. The head of the PAC says the thought never crossed her mind.

Big political contributions have poured into a local school board race in Perth Amboy, New Jersey.

Donors in California andColorado are supporting a slate of school board candidates in that small New Jersey district.

As Jersey Jazzman explains here, the school board in Perth Amboy has been trying to oust the district’s divisive superintendent. Acting Commissioner of Education Chris Cerf has protected her, preventing the board from getting rid of her. The election provides an opportunity to fire the board and install one that will defend Chris Christie’s agenda: anti-teacher, anti-union, anti-tenure, pro-privatization.

As Jersey Jazzman writes:

It seems absurd, and yet it’s true: four wealthy Californians and one wealthy Coloradan – heavy hitters in the tech, financial, and health care sectors – have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to a slate of candidates running for the school board in Perth Amboy, a city of 50,000 with a majority Hispanic population.

“According to New Jersey election records, the slate of candidates calling themselves “Better Schools Now!” has collected $64,700, mostly from sources outside of Perth Amboy. In contrast, an opposing slate, “New Vision, New Voice” has collected $7,005, with all of its donations over $300 coming from within the city.”

There is a clear pattern emerging here and elsewhere around the country: a small number of extremely wealthy individuals are pouring huge amounts of money into elections, state and local, to buy the result they want: privatization, budget cuts, anti-union policies, a compliant school board.

It happened last year in Denver and last spring spring in Louisiana; its happening now in Perth Amboy, New Orleans, Idaho, Santa Clara County (CA), Washington State, Georgia, and elsewhere.

This is not haphazard. These are takeover targets.

Time for an investigative journalist to find out who is coordinating this subversion of democracy.

The people of Michigan have received the report of the “Oxford Foundation” on the future of education in that state.

The authors of the report have nothing to do with Oxford University or Britain.

They are not part of a foundation.

They are Republican operatives carrying out the wishes of Governor Rick Snyder to destroy public education in Michigan.

The ideas the report advances are Governor Snyder’s plan to make education “any place, any time, any where, any how, any which way but up or down.”

The basic plan is that anyone can supply education. It is not a public responsibility.

What we now call public education will disappear, if Rick Snyder and the “Oxford Foundation” has its way.

It’s into the free market, with spoils and riches for all!

Good education for those who can afford it.

Boot camps for the rest.

 

Connecticut blogger and political insider Jonathan Pelto broke the story:

Corporate reformers and privatizers have poured record amounts of campaign cash into Bridgeport, Connecticut, to persuade voters to turn control over their schools to the mayor.

One of the big givers was NYC Mayor Bloomberg, who gave $20,000 to help Mayor Finch gain control over the people’s schools.

Mayoral control in New York City did not narrow the city’s achievement gaps.

Mayoral control has not improved the schools in Cleveland, Chicago, or Detroit (Detroit tried it, abandoned, and one of its recent mayors went to jail for various reasons).

The mayoral-controlled public schools of Washington, DC, have the biggest achievement gaps in the nation, double the gaps in other big cities.

Will the voters of Bridgeport vote to relinquish their right to elect their school board?

Can the public be persuaded by big money to abandon democracy?

This article explains succinctly why certain members of the billionaire boys club have decided that Washington State absolutely positively must have charter schools. Their recipe for school reform: the free market. And why not? The free market works for them. Will they put their own children (or in the case of the Bezos family, grandchildren) in charter schools? Don’t be silly.

A group called Education Voters of Idaho refused to disclose its donors until required to do so by a court order.

The biggest donor is a businessman who is an investor in K12, the online charter corporation ($250,000); the second biggest donor is Mayor Michael Bloomberg ($200,000).

EVI promotes the anti-union, anti-teacher, privatizing policies of state superintendent Tom Luna. Supporters of public education are seeking to repeal the Luna laws, which are deceptively called “Students Come First.” The phrase echoes Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst and Joel Klein’s Children’s First.

Luna has received heavy funding from technology corporations, and his laws mandate the purchase of a laptop computer for every student, and every student must take two online courses for graduation. They eliminate tenure and seniority. They require that student test scores count for 50% of every educator’s evaluation, including district superintendents, principals and teachers. All educators will have a one or two year contract. They initiate bonus pay based on test scores for all educators. Teachers will not get a written explanation if the principal decides to fire them.

A sample of one of the laws:

School districts no longer have to prove a financial emergency before reducing teacher numbers. School boards can reduce teacher numbers at their discretion but cannot consider seniority when deciding who to eliminate.