Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

John Thompson, teacher and historian, has been investigating the track record of Superintendents “trained” by the unaccredited Broad Foundation.

He writes:

Across the nation, educators have seen the harm done to public education by Broad Academy superintendents. But what do we see when we take a step back and think through their patterns of behavior? And what do we see when looking at Oakland, for instance, where four Broad graduates have run the district? When Broad focuses so intently on one school system, what does the record of its leaders say about education “reform?”

Perhaps the most powerful indictment of an Oakland-connected Broadie, Antwan Wilson, was written by conservative reformer Max Eden, who is one of the many new critics of the data-driven micromanaging which Broad exemplifies. This is crucial because more and more reformers are acknowledging that their accountability-driven theories have failed; apparently, these corporate reformers are now gambling everything on choice, and placing their bets on charters that don’t face the oversight that once was contemplated by many neoliberal reformers.

And that is the first obvious pattern which emerged from Oakland. Before the first Broad manager (Randy Ward) was appointed, Oakland had 15 charters. Six years later, after Oakland experienced three Broad superintendents, it had 34. By the time Antwan Wilson left, the district had 44. As was explained in 2016 by the New York Times Motoko Rich, Wilson faced “a rebellion by teachers and some parents against his plan to allow families to use a single form to apply to any of the city’s 86 district-run schools or 44 charter campuses, all of which are competing for a shrinking number of students.” The likely scenario was that the common application form would result in a New Orleans-style charter portfolio model.

Second, the Oakland Broad experience provides another example about the way that their corporate reformers are untroubled by behaviors that most people see as scandalous. Its four Broad leaders all came with a history of dubious behaviors, or when they left they were caught up in questionable activities.

Vincent Matthews (Broad Class of 2006) had been the principal of a Edison Charter Academy in Noe Valley which had been in danger of losing its charter because it had been criticized for pushing out black students with low test scores. Kimberly Statham (2003) had resigned as chief academic officer of the Howard County Schools following allegations of a grade changing scandal involving her daughter.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/incoming-sf-schools-superintendent-takes-measured-stance-charters/

http://www.baltimoresun.com/bs-mtblog-2007-10-where_are_they_now_kimberly_a-story.html

Randy Ward (2003) left Oakland for San Diego where he resigned, after being placed on administrative leave. The San Diego County Office of Education had been thrown into turmoil as a forensic audit examined “concerns related to certain expenditures and compensation” for top education officials.

I’d add an observation about one controversy involving Michelle Fort-Merrill, “a close confidant to former superintendent Ward,” who earned a salary of $161,000. A whistle-blower won a civil lawsuit after accusing Fort-Merrill and others of “playing favorites with public education money by awarding lucrative legal contracts to friends.” He successfully claimed that his due process rights were violated.

When Fort-Merrill was terminated, she sued saying her due process rights were violated. Isn’t it hypocritical for corporate reformers to use charter expansions and data-driven evaluations for an all-out assault on educators’ due process rights while using those rights to protect their huge salaries?
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/sdut-tensions-rise-at-county-office-of-education-2016jul14-story.html

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-county-schools-audit-20170714-story.html

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2017/mar/02/ticker-lawsuit-top-lawsuit-office-education/#

Only after Antwan Wilson left Oakland and became Washington D.C.’s chancellor, did his full record become apparent. As Valerie Strauss noteds “It was no secret that when Wilson departed the Oakland Unified School District 2½ years after arriving, he left a budget deficit of about $30 million behind.” But subsequent analyses showed:

While Wilson was superintendent in Oakland, the district overspent its budget in some areas, but spent substantially below budgeted amounts in other categories, according to data from the Board of Education. During the 2016-2017 school year, $10.4 million was budgeted for “classified supervisors and administrators” while $22.2 million was spent, according to the Board of Education. In the same year, $21.4 million was budgeted for professional and consulting services, but $28.2 million was spent.

Wilson spent huge amounts of money, creating new, unbudgeted positions and he paid more than what was customary. Strauss noted, “In 2013, before Wilson arrived in Oakland, only four administrators earned more than $200,000; two years later, at least 26 did.”

But Wilson spent less on books and supplies for classrooms than was budgeted. In 2015-2016, Strauss recalls, “$18.6 million was budgeted, but only $12.3 million was spent, according to board data. In 2016-2017, $20.1 million was budgeted for books and other school supplies, but only $6.8 million was spent.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/11/21/new-d-c-schools-chancellor-under-scrutiny-for-overspending-in-california-district-he-led/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.26d4816495f4

https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2018/04/27/antwan-wilson-no-longer-working-as-a-consultant-for-denver-public-schools/

https://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2018/01/30/books_cooked_at_dc_schools_will_star_chancellor_answer_110250.html

Wilson was forced to resign in D.C. after violating rules when transferring his daughter to one of the city’s most desirable high schools. This followed a Washington Post report that “an internal investigation has uncovered signs of widespread enrollment fraud” at a desirable school.

And these violations were revealed about the time that it was learned that Wilson had been warned of the Ballou High School graduation scandal. Moreover, these revelations followed Washington Post discovery that “the dramatic decrease in school suspension rates was also fake.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-mayor-muriel-bowser-called-her-ousted-school-chancellors-action-indefensible-the-chancellor-says-bowser-knew-about-it-for-months/2018/03/05/d909cbc3-6e34-49f8-995f-22e1dd2ea5aa_story.html?utm_term=.1f04bdaca4ee

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/some-dc-high-schools-reported-only-a-small-fraction-of-suspensions/2017/07/17/045c387e-5762-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html?utm_term=.33d5f5ed4ce0

In other words, Wilson, the fourth Broad superintendent of Oakland, found himself in a very similar situation in D.C., being the third in the line of corporate reformers that began with Michelle Rhee. My sense is that the mess he helped create in Oakland illustrates a pattern which is similar to the one that was started by Michelle Rhee. Even if Broad superintendents were not so cavalier about violating the norms of honest behsvior, their data-driven mentality would still create inevitable scandals. Plus, the more that Broad and other corporate reformers double-down on a single district, the more damage will become too serious to be covered up any longer.

For instance, D.C.’s data-driven, competition-driven reforms created “a Culture of Passing and Graduating Students.” A review of FY16-17 DCPS graduates found that 34.% of students graduated with the assistance of policy violations.

Click to access Report%20on%20DCPS%20Graduation%20and%20Attendance%20Outcomes%20-%20Alvarez%26Marsal.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/before-a-graduation-scandal-made-headlines-teachers-at-dcs-ballou-high-raised-an-alarm/2018/01/06/ad49f198-df6a-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.d92ab9db4468

Click to access Report%20on%20DCPS%20Graduation%20and%20Attendance%20Outcomes%20-%20Alvarez%26Marsal.pdf

The unraveling of D.C.’s claims of transformational success is crucial because it was once the heart of the Billionaires Boys Club’s vision for American schools. Nobody dared to claim that Oakland was a great success, but as the Motoko Rich’s article articulates, it became the “Heart of Drive to Transform Urban Schools.”

Not only did Broad train four of Oakland’s superintendents, but:

It has granted about $6 million for staff development and other programs over the last decade. The Broad Center, which runs the superintendents’ academy, has subsidized the salaries of at least 10 ex-business managers who moved into administrative jobs at the district office.

Broadies may have had “modest success in raising student achievement” but in the environment they created there is no reason to believe that those “achievement” gains are real. It failed to solve the district’s financial problems, and it dramatically expanded charters.

So, what is next?

Broad has been helping to fund the campaigns to elect its corporate reformers in elections throughout California. Its failure to improve Los Angeles, Oakland, and other districts is interpreted as more evidence against public education norms. Rather than admit that their social engineering has failed, Broad et. al are doubling down on the edu-politics of destruction.

Leonie Haimson is a true school reformer, unlike the hedge funders, tycoons, and entrepreneurs who have falsely claimed that title. She is a dedicated education activist who has led the fight over many years for fully funded public schools and student privacy.

In this video, she talks with veteran journalist Bob Herbert about the mistakes of those in power who rely on standardized testing as the sole definition of success, about segregation, about the damage wrought by charter schools, and about the changes that will benefit all students.

When Mayor Bloomberg first took control of the New York City public schools and launched his reforms, his Chancellor Joel Klein said that New York needed not “a school system,” but “a system of schools.” Over time, his meaning became clear. He would break up and close scores of existing schools and replace them with brand new schools, including dozens of shiny new charter schools. “A system of schools” is akin to what others call “the portfolio model.” The board chooses winners and losers, like buying and selling stocks for your stock portfolio.

It soon turned out that the “system of schools” was a reformer cliche, like offering choice to “save poor black kids from failing schools.” We now know that most of those poor black kids lost their community school and were sent off to a distant school that was no better than the school that was closed. They were not saved. There seems to be a Reformers’ Hymnal that lists all these cliches (“no child’s future should be determined by his zip code,” etc.). I would love to see that list of favorite phrases to rationalize disruption the public schools and replacing them with privatized charters that come and go like day lilies.

Jane Nylund, a parent activist, gave a lot of thought to this “system of schools” thing. Here is her effort to put it in perspective by comparing it to the city’s water system.

She writes:

In all the discussions regarding the idea of creating a “system of schools”, I have not seen any discussion regarding school governance, and why these two sets of schools can never be “systemized” as a means to create an aura of goodwill and cooperation amongst the competitors. That’s because the topic of school governance is seen as unimportant, unnecessary, not needed for quality or equity, etc. Don’t worry about it…parents don’t care, because we told them not to…

I’ve been trying to figure out an analogy for what the board has proposed, and I think I’ve come up with one:

A System of Water

East Bay Municipal Utility District provides a high quality product to just about everyone within our municipality. It’s clear, clean, tasty. It’s not entirely free, but the cost can be subsidized for those who have trouble affording their product. As far as I know, virtually everyone has access to it. It is a public utility governed by an elected public board and heavily regulated. It is also fiscally transparent. It operates for the common good. Everyone gets the same high-quality product. It would be terrible if people couldn’t afford it, or the quality was lacking and people got sick from it.

Meanwhile, an assortment of private bottled water companies are having trouble growing new market share in their mature, saturated market. Their mountain springs are running dry, their expenses are going up, and they need to tap into new markets to keep running, so to speak. Crystal Geyser needs to come up with a strategy to sell to EBMUD, and fast. Their shareholders are breathing down their necks.

Crystal Geyser comes up with this great idea, A System of Water. Who needs a pricey mountain spring? What if Crystal Geyser can use EBMUD’s infrastructure and facilities in order to produce a great tasting product that Crystal Geyser can sell for a profit? EBMUD already has low-cost facilities, so why can’t Crystal Geyser simply take over part of those facilities? It can produce its bottled water easier and cheaper than trying to find another clean, high-quality mountain spring. After all, Crystal Geyser has an ROI to worry about. At the same time, because it’s a business, it also needs to grow market share, so part of that marketing campaign would be to claim that Crystal Geyser is clean, pure, free of any nastiness that might get into the regular water system, you know, EBMUD. So even though their product isn’t really superior, they can sell more of it by bashing the quality of EBMUD’s own water product. Crystal Geyser also has attractive packaging, superior distribution, as well as plenty of advertising budget to sell its water. More and more, you see their ads on social media, TV, AC Transit. Crystal Geyser even hands out discount coupons near public water fountains, warning users of potentially harmful bacteria lurking in the plumbing.

EBMUD’s customers don’t think A System of Water is a good idea. EBMUD has to maintain their quality standards and they are accountable to the voters and the regulators if they don’t perform; if Crystal Geyser takes up a portion of their manufacturing/bottling/purification plant, that’s going to make it more difficult and expensive for EBMUD. They also expose themselves to all kinds of legal and ethical entanglements if they can’t keep the water standards high. They have to be held accountable.

Crystal Geyser’s superior marketing means that they are able to grow their share of the water market, bottled or otherwise. Not everyone wants or needs Crystal Geyser, but that doesn’t matter to them as long as their financials look good. Maybe some people try Crystal Geyser, but they don’t like the idea of using plastic. Or maybe it doesn’t really taste as good as the Hetch Hetchy straight from the tap. Customers complain to the company, but there are other customers willing to drink Crystal Geyser, so not a big concern for the company. Any dissatisfied customer can certainly choose another brand of water or go back to EBMUD.

It also turns out that there is some malfeasance going on with the quality of Crystal Geyser. Lab tests show tiny bits of plastic floating around in the water. If ingested, they can pose a health risk. In addition, it turns out that they have not disclosed to their customers that the company no longer bottles their water from a pure, mountain spring, but they have been filling bottles with EBMUD’s own tap water, slapping their own label on the bottles, and marketing it as mountain spring. Since they are a private company, no one is really checking their marketing claims or making sure that the water is safe to drink.

Does Crystal Geyser care about what happens to EBMUD? Of course not, they are a business. They only care about growing and maintaining their own market share. But the company really, really wants to use EBMUDs facilities to grow and save on expenses, so Crystal Geyser comes up with A System of Water, as a means to increase its market share using EBMUDs infrastructure. Crystal Geyser explains to EBMUD’s customers that they are both on the same page; they both provide a quality product; they are both in demand. There’s room at the table for everyone. Really.

But, as more and more water drinkers start purchasing more and more Crystal Geyser (it’s a nice bottle, and it’s pure mountain-spring!), EBMUD struggles. It has to shut down part of its capacity. Crystal Geyser sees that excess capacity as an opportunity to increase its own production. Soon, EBMUD starts having water quality problems: bacteria, particulates, you name it. They have to add more chlorine to counteract this problem; now it tastes funky. This can’t end well for EBMUD. Meanwhile, Crystal Geyser has managed to set up a brand new filtration/purification system that ensures its side of the plant is functioning well. And now, it can market its water as cleaner, safer, and better-tasting than EBMUD. Bottled water flies off of the shelves. Crystal Geyser’s plan has worked perfectly.

Now, given this scenario, can you imagine this kind of business partnership between two directly competing products ever happening in the real world? Then why would anyone ever think that public district schools and privately managed charter schools can work as a system? It’s the same scenario. My analogy isn’t perfect; charter operators argue that district schools do not, in fact, provide a quality product for everyone; hence the creation of a “choice” system. But of course what ends up happening is that charters “choose” their students in the long run and shed the rest, who often return to the district schools. It’s part of the business model of which the entire charter sector is based, and it’s an effective way to sabotage a public good. Unlike public entities, no business exists to serve high quality to all. It can’t happen. Can everyone buy a Porsche? (sorry, that one doesn’t come with an engine). In contrast, there are plenty of businesses that serve low-quality to most. (Pepsi and Dominos Pizza).

One can also argue that, unlike Crystal Geyser, charters in California operate as non-profits. That feel-good nonprofit label is a tax designation that means their profits don’t go to shareholders, but instead are supposed to be “invested” back into the business. But as we have seen, these investments can include all kinds of money-making opportunities: high admin salaries, big consulting contracts handed out to friends and relations, exorbitant rents paid out to leasing companies owned by friends and relations, etc. No oversight. The usual. All for the kids…

In conclusion, the idea that “Turning charters into the Wolf that guards and hunts with you in lean times, rather than than the one that eats you” is an unenforceable, feel-good platitude at best, and nothing more than a rationale for more charter giveaways. In the business world, they don’t call it “Dog Eat Dog” for nothing. The Waltons would be proud.

A letter from a friend in the Bay Area about the California Gubernatorial primary, won handily by Gavin Newsom, with Republican John Cox coming in second.


In the California governor’s primary, pro-“reform” Democratic former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa got knocked out despite millions in pro-charter money from billionaires poured into Villaraigosa’s campaign (via a California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) PAC. In the runoff, Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom will face Republican (endorsed by Trump) businessman John Cox, in a state where Republicans are heavily outnumbered.

California’s primary is “top two” — regardless of party, the top two finishers face off in November if none gets 50%+ of the primary vote. It was generally expected early on that Democrats Villaraigosa and Newsom would face each other in the general election.

Partway through the campaign, pro-“reform” billionaires started pouring millions through the CCSA PAC into Villaraigosa’s campaign, making it look like suddenly he would have a fabulous, huge edge — but the more there were reports of pro-“reform” billionaire millions pouring in through the pro-charter PAC, the more Villaraigosa dropped in the polls, and the polls were accurate.

Newsom does not have a pro-“reform” history, though he’s highly debated in California and Bay Area Badass Teachers Facebook groups, and some people have pointed out that he has made comments praising TFA and he says he supports good charters. In this campaign, Newsom had a panel of education advisers that included two San Francisco leaders who are strongly anti-charter and are friends of mine; as well as anti-“reform” academic Julian Vasquez Heilig.

But the most fascinating thing is that the more pro-charter millions coming from the billionaires poured into the Villaraigosa campaign, the more he dropped in the polls — it was practically proportional. I don’t delude myself that the voting public dislikes “reform” or charters or even know what they are, but I suspect that there are negative connotations to millions from the billionaires, especially since some were out-of-state billionaires.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Gavin-Newsom-grabs-early-lead-in-CA-governor-s-12970788.php

This is as terrific article about the huge impact made by corporate education reformers in New York State, aided and abetted by Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is trying to position himself as a progressive for the 2020 Presidential campaign.

It begins like this:

Imagine you are in grade school, taking a test, one that could determine whether your teacher keeps her job, the amount of funding your school receives or even if it will remain open. You’ve been preparing for this test for months and now there is a multiple-choice question on a computer screen in front of you, but every option — A, B, C — reads “system error.”

This actually happened on April 11 to students sitting for the New York State English exam. Other students in the 263 districts taking part in the digital-testing pilot program weren’t able to log in or their work was lost when the software crashed. The glitch was ultimately ironed out, but the “system error” message spoke volumes to critics of the state’s increased emphasis on standardized tests.

In the past two school years, approximately 20 percent of New York parents have refused to force their children to take the statewide exams in what’s become known as the opt-out movement. They say the tests are developmentally inappropriate, while teachers complain of being forced to devote excessive amounts of time preparing students for them.

Gov. Cuomo has pushed corporate friendly school policies whose impact has been far-reaching.

“As teachers, we’re trained to look at the entire child, but as soon as we enter the institution of the Department of Education, we’re suddenly compliance managers,” says Jia Lee. An opt-out parent and a teachers union activist, Lee has worked as a special education instructor at various New York City public schools for 17 years. She is running for lieutenant governor as a Green Party candidate. “The pressure is on the teacher and the administrators to make sure test scores are high,” she says.

Parents and educators alike have also raised concerns about students’ privacy. The test scores are part of the data used to track student performance over the course of their education. Personal information such as Social Security numbers are often batched in with academic information provided to third-party vendors contracted by the state Department of Education (DOE).

In January, Questar, which received a five-year, $44 million contract in 2015 to administer state exams for third through eighth graders, announced that a data breach had compromised the confidential information of 52 students at five schools in Great Neck, Menands, Oceanside, Queens and Buffalo. That’s only a minute fraction of the more than 2.6 million students enrolled in New York’s school system, but nonetheless the breach — which included student names, teachers, grades and identification numbers — highlighted the risks of collecting massive troves of student data and placing it in the hands of third parties.

Yet the tests and the data-driven assessments of both teachers and students that have accompanied them are just one facet of the education overhaul the state is undergoing at the direction of Gov. Andrew Cuomo — part of a national trend of education “reforms” pushed forward by Wall Street, technology companies and billionaires like the Walton family, heirs to the Walmart fortune.

Gov. Cuomo, the most powerful politician in New York for the past seven and a half years, is seeking a third term but is facing a primary challenge from the left by Cynthia Nixon, a longtime education activist who has name recognition thanks to her role on the popular television program Sex and the City.

The governor, who hopes that winning a third term will vault him into consideration as a viable presidential candidate in 2020, touts himself as a “progressive” Democrat while raising vast sums of money from the 1 percent. Cuomo has increased the minimum wage and pushed same-sex marriage through the legislature, but he has a much spottier record on several other major issues. New York City’s subway system has fallen apart on his watch. He has done almost nothing to shore up state laws that protect the roughly 2 million city residents who live in rent-stabilized apartments, has chronically underfunded city and state university systems, and has pushed forward a series of corporate-friendly school policies whose impact on millions of New York school children, families and teachers has been far-reaching — if more opaque and obscure than a daily commute from hell on a broken subway system.

Often derided as the “school deform movement” by its detractors, the corporate push for education reform has led to the closure of hundreds of public schools, the proliferation of privately-operated, publicly-funded charter schools and attacks on teachers’ unions, one of the last bastions of organized labor. Norm Scott, a longtime public school teacher who now runs the Ed Notes Online blog, describes the surfeit of corporate think tanks, political action committees, charter school chains and data analysis firms that have sprung up under the “reform” umbrella in recent years as the “Education Industrial Complex.”

“It’s not going away any time soon,” says Scott. “There’s too much money in it.”

Both Republicans and many Democrats have promoted these policies, through their preferred ideological lenses. For the GOP, it’s about school choice, “innovation” and often breaking the “obstructionism” of teachers’ unions. Meanwhile, Democrats like Cuomo have couched their calls for stiffer teacher evaluations tied to standardized tests and for replacing public schools with charters in the language of progressivism, arguing their agenda will grant every student an equal opportunity to succeed.

When Students Are Cattle, Teachers Are Ranchers

Gov. Cuomo has championed a series of policies that, taken together, form a kind of feedback loop (See sidebar) threatening the foundation of public education in the state. Test scores are used to fire teachers and to label schools failures and close them down. In turn, those schools are replaced by nonunion charters, thereby weakening the membership base of the New York State United Teachers, the statewide teachers union, and its New York City local, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT).

“I’ll never forgive Gov. Cuomo,” says Carol Burris, a former principal of the year at South Side High School in Rockville Centre on Long Island, now executive director of the Network for Public Education Foundation. She describes the climate in which the “reform” movement first began to pick up steam. The Obama administration’s 2009 “Race to the Top” initiative gave states an incentive to focus on test scores as a way of securing federal grants at a time when the housing crisis had left schools strapped for revenue.

“Cuomo, he just took advantage of it politically,” Burris explains. “All of a sudden, teachers and principals were seen as villains. We were not doing our job. We had to perform. And if only we were better, poverty would disappear because all of the kids at school, no matter how difficult their circumstances, they would go off to college and poverty would disappear….”

For proponents of education reform in both major political parties, the financial rewards have been handsome. Corporate reformers have big money to throw around, which they have used to insert themselves in policy debates, often drowning out the voices of parents and teachers. In a recent special election in Westchester County to fill a vacant state Senate seat, a political action committee linked to the charter advocacy group StudentsFirstNY poured $800,000 into ads opposing Democratic candidate Shelley Mayer. The bulk of StudentsFirstNY’s funding comes from members of the Walton family. On April 13, 11 days before the special election, Arkansas-natives Alice and Jim Walton wired a half a million dollars each to StudentsFirstNY’s PAC, a review of campaign finance filings shows. Mayer ultimately won despite that torrent of cash.

‘You can’t say you believe in public schools when you aren’t funding them equitably.’
The misleadingly named Great Public Schools PAC run by Success Academy CEO Eva Moskowitz, has donated $303,500 to politicians of all stripes in New York, including $105,000 to Gov. Cuomo since 2011. Moskowitz, a former City Councilmember from the Upper East Side, makes $600,000 a year as CEO. Billionaire asset manager Daniel Loeb, who served as Success Academy’s chair until he announced on May 1 that he was stepping down, contributed $400,000 to Cuomo and PACs that support him — that’s excluding the $300,000 he’s poured into Moskowitz’s Great Public Schools.

Success Academy gave no reason for Loeb’s resignation, though it appears unrelated to remarks he made on Facebook last August. In them, he praised state Senator Jeff Klein, the leader of the breakaway Independent Democratic Conference that allied with the Republicans to give them control of the Senate, for standing up for “poor knack [sic] kids.” After his glowing endorsement of Klein, who is white, Loeb went on compare charter school opponents to the Ku Klux Klan, specifically citing the Senate’s African-American Democratic leader: “hypocrites like [Andrea] Stewart-Cousins who pay fealty to powerful union thugs and bosses do more damage to people of color than anyone who has ever donned a hood.” He will be succeeded by another Wall Street kingpin, Steven Galbraith of Kindred Capital.

Joanne Barkan has been writing brilliant articles about the billionaire assault on public education for several years. Her first was “Got Dough? How Billionaires Rule Our Schools.”

Her latest is this article, which appeared on Valerie Strauss’s “The Answer Sheet.” She calls it “Death by a Thousand Cuts.” It will ring true for everyone who is fighting the massive money and power of the privatizers.

Barkan supplies a brief history of neoliberalism, as well as the federal efforts to introduce competition and privatization into the schools.

She begins:

When champions of market-based reform in the United States look at public education, they see two separate activities — government funding education and government running schools. The first is okay with them; the second is not. Reformers want to replace their bête noire — what they call the “monopoly of government-run schools” — with freedom of choice in a competitive market dominated by privately run schools that get government subsidies.

Public funding, private management — these four words sum up American-style privatization whether applied to airports, prisons, or elementary and secondary schools. In the last 20 years, the “ed-reform” movement has assembled a mixed bag of players and policies, complicated by alliances of convenience and half-hidden agendas. Donald Trump’s election and his choice of zealot privatizer Betsy DeVos as U.S. secretary of education bolstered reformers but has also made more Americans wary.

What follows is a survey of the controversial movement — where it came from, how it grew, and what it has delivered so far to a nation deeply divided by race and class.

Print it out and take the time to read it. An informed citizenry can stop this behemoth. All that money and power and the privatizers have achieved exactly nothing other than destruction.

Recently I posted an article by pro-choice advocate Paul Peterson about the origins of charter schools. He wrote, “No, Albert Shanker Did Not Invent Charter Schools.” Shanker wanted teacher-led schools, schools-within-schools. He believed that their teachers would be union members and that the charters would be approved by the other staff in the school and by the local school board.

But, wrote Peterson, Minnesota rejected Shanker’s views and instead wrote a law in 1991 that allowed other authorizers besides the district, that cleared the way for entrepreneurs and other non-educators to open charters, and that were not bound to accept teachers unions. Shanker wanted charters to be Research and Development programs for public schools. Led by Ted Kolderie and Joe Nathan, the Minnesota reformers wanted charters to compete with public schools.

A few states made school districts the sole authorizers of charters, and those states have few charters. Most, however, followed Minnesota’s lead, encouraging many authorizers, many kinds of charter management organizations, and the emergence of an aggressive entrepreneurial sector. The latter states have h7 drew of charters of varying quality.

So what happened to charters in Minnesota, the first state to launch them in 1992?

Rob Levine, native Minnesotan, writer, photographer, blogger, assays the failed promises of charters in Minnesota in this post.

Levine shows that the push for charters came not from teachers or parents, but from “a who’s who of the state’s business, civic, foundation, non-profit and political elite.”

“Key to that sales pitch: the idea that education is, at its heart, a business and should operate by the business principles that govern virtually every other sector of the economy, with a spoken goal of “breaking the government monopoly” on public primary and secondary education. The unspoken goals were many and varied but the budgetary results of those efforts are quantifiable: the conversion of nearly $1 trillion spent annually nationally on public primary and secondary education to private profit, and the breaking of the nation’s teachers’ unions.

“To make this palatable, charter boosters focused on a righteous idea: the creation of better and more educational opportunities for poor children of color. In the end, the change model they embraced was what’s sometimes called the Shock Doctrine. First you create and/or declare an emergency in a cash-rich public sector, then you propose the solution that inevitably results in the privatization of as much of the sector as possible.

“In a wide-ranging proposal to reform government called the Minnesota Policy Blueprint, Mitch Pearlstein, a leader in Minnesota’s “School Choice Movement,” admitted as much in his chapter on education policy. In Pearlstein’s view, the answer to the challenges of public education is obvious: all public schools should be converted to charter schools.
Today only two of Minnesota’s 174 operating charter schools have a unionized faculty.”

“It’s not hard to see why that conclusion appealed to Pearlstein. For decades, the teachers unions have been the bête noire to GOP lawmakers in state houses across the nation. As the founder and leader of a Republican “think tank”, the Center of the American Experiment, Pearlstein understood that unions would not be able to get a foothold in charter schools. He was right. Today, 22 years later, only two of Minnesota’s 174 operating charter schools have a unionized faculty.”

Charter promoters, he says, worked out a deal that the state would ignore segregation in return for higher test scores.

“Twenty five years later the results of those “deals” are clear. After adjusting for external factors charter school students do no better, and probably marginally worse, on standardized test scores than students at regular public schools. And charter schools are decidedly more segregated than their regular public school counterparts. By 2016 there were 93 “hypersegregated” schools in the Twin Cities – more than 95% children of color. Almost two-thirds of those schools are charters. Children of color in the state who attend charter schools are twice as likely as their regular public school counterparts to attend a highly segregated school…Today, according to a report from the University of Minnesota’s Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, “Of the 50 most racially concentrated Twin Cities schools, 45 are charters.”

The Big Daddy of charters in Minnesota is the Walton Family Foundation. Levine points out that “the Walton Family Foundation…has started or helped to start 30 percent of all charter schools ever opened in the state. In effect we’ve partially outsourced the starting up of new schools to the heirs of the Walmart fortune.”

Levine writes that there are 48,000 students in the Minneapolis schools, public and charter. 36,000 are in public schools. Reformers plan to add 30,000 new “relevant and rigorous seats.” He assumes they mean seats in charters. He foresees the withering away of public schools in Minneapolis.

Given the charters’ failure to fulfill any of their promises, he thinks the public might get tired of paying for them. But he worries that time grows short.

“A journalist once seeking to report on the Gates Foundation’s education activity lamented how difficult the job was because nearly everyone in the education community was taking his money. That’s how it is in Minnesota education policy discourse. The only voices making it through our media din are the ones with a steady stash of tax-exempt income. The reformers’ money guarantees a seat at every table.

“When they’re not dredging up or paying for bogus studies or polls, the foundations and organizations are sponsoring events to push their agenda. These events are then broadcast by local public media, presented as a “public service.” This is especially true for non-profit media the foundations contribute to, especially MinnPost, but also including Minnesota Public Radio and Twin Cities Public Television (TPT).

“Education reformers will need all that firepower because evidence and reason are always just around the corner. They can only make excuses for low test scores, all kinds of impropriety, incompetence and segregation for so long. Providing marginally better test scores at a few segregated schools won’t cut it. And it remains to be seen how long the voting public will take paying taxes to support schools while having little to no control over them. If we wait much longer to take action to end the failed experiment of charter schools it could very well result in the end of the Minneapolis public schools, and that’s just a start.”

This is the most important story you will read today. It is a warning about where School Choice is heading, what it will do to the democratic institution of the public schools, what it has already done to the schools of one district in California. If we don’t reverse the tide, more districts will be drowned by choice and debt.

Retired physics teacher Tom Ultican has been researching the Destroy Pubkic Education movement. This movement creates nothing positive. It tears down what once belonged to the community, paid for with their tax dollars.

The story of Inglewood, California, is a textbook case of the destruction of a small district, brought low by NCLB, then strangled and left for dead by a series of Broad-trained superintendents and the steady expansion of privately managed charter schools.

The story of Inglewood is an indictment of the so-called reform movement, which destroyed the public schools of that district.

Are Public Schools in Inglewood, California a Warning?

Ultican begins:

“In 2006, the relatively small Inglewood Unified School District (IUSD) had over 18,000 students and was a fiscally sound competent system. Today, IUSD has 8,400 students, is 30% privatized and drowning in debt. In 2012, the state of California took over the district, usurped the authority of the elected school board and installed a “State Trustee” to run it. IUSD is on its sixth state appointed trustee in six years.

“This crisis was created by politicians and wealthy elites. It did not just happen. Understanding the privatization of Inglewood’s schools through the choice agenda is instructive of the path that could lead to the end of public schools in California…

“NCLB set the table. Students in poor communities were guaranteed to produce bad test results. Billionaires were pouring huge money into developing the charter school industry. State leaders were putting privatization friendly leaders in charge of school districts. The state trustees were never in place long enough to provide stable leadership.

“Eli Broad attended public school and went on to become the only person ever to develop two Fortune 500 companies, Sun America and KB Homes. Broad, who is worth $6 billion, decided that public schools should be privatized and established a school for administrators to promote his ideology.

“In Oakland, the first state trustee was a Broad Academy graduate named Randy Ward and three more of the next 6 superintendents who followed Ward were also Broad trained. Oakland suffered nine superintendents in 13 years.

“In Inglewood, one trustee was a charter school founder who was concurrently serving as a board member of the charter school and the last two superintendents were Broad trained. Inglewood received six state appointed trustees in six years.

“How much longer before large school districts like San Diego and Los Angeles – with 25% or more of their students in privatized schools – are forced into bankruptcy and taken over by the state? Both districts are currently running massive deficits caused primarily by charter school privatization and unfair special education costs.”

Imagine this absurd scenario: Five billionaires are pouring huge sums of money into the races for Governor of California and State Superintendent of Instruction. What is their main goal? More charter schools. More and more.

Crazy but true

You would think the main goal of campaign funding would be the economy, or water, or health care,the environment. No, it is charter schools.

Open the link to see who they are.

And be sure to read the comments. One from Lisa Alva could be a post by itself.

It speaks volume about the ultimate goal of the privatizers.

Lisa Alva writes:

Based on my experience, I believe that the goal of this consortium is on-line learning for most California students, supported by expensive software and more expensive hardware that replaces unionized teachers where possible.

I was on the Board of Directors for Villaraigosa’s Partnership for Los Angeles Schools; I was in every meeting of this entity and heard their claims and concerns first-hand, I saw their methods in the planning and implementation phases, I heard their rationales and values. I saw and heard that data and results were the focus that kept money and participation among donors at an acceptable level. I did not ever, ever hear or see efforts to gather information from classroom-level staff; aside from image-building listening sessions, teacher experience was largely unimportant in making decisions or plans.

I worked at a PLAS high school from the inception of PLAS as a teacher and a coordinator. I saw that the so-called “graduation rate” of “80%” that Tuck and Tony V. are claiming was completely gamed using on-line “learning” in credit-recovery classes.

Nothing different was taking place in classrooms.

No students were held accountable for anything.

Students freely web-surfed, copied and pasted their way to diplomas despite the supervising teachers’ best efforts to enforce real learning. Teachers eventually revolted, resulting in tighter standards for enrollment in credit recovery classes, which diminished the “amazing results” significantly.

I saw very expensive executives burn through a revolving door of management, first in the pursuit of immediate impact, and then in pursuit of other employment. Two top executives responsible for the dramatic increase in graduation statistics lasted less than a year in the PLAS; they, like many other PLAS people, now work in San Diego or in private education-related enterprise.

The Tuck-Villaraigosa effort has nothing to do with creating whole, self-actualizing citizens who can handle the challenges of a 21st century workplace and lead happy, fulfilled lives. With John Deasy back in California and Eli Broad’s plan for charterizing California schools in full swing, the automization of public education seems to be a foregone conclusion.

John Merrow has seen the light. Once you begin to doubt the testing regime, nothing ever looks the same again. The usual ed reform conversation begins to sound like “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” You watch people discussing the data but it no longer makes sense. It once did, but no longer.

In this post, he says there are four groups of people in the conversation about education today.

The DeVos crowd wants to abandon public education.

The reformers are locked into the mindset of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. They control the debate and their ideas are stale.

The third group is uninformed and not interested.

The fourth group are progressives, who are trying to imagine a different way to educate children, in which they learn with excitement and purpose.

John thinks of himself as a progressive. I do too.

Where do you stand?