Some sensible Ohio legislators recognize that the A-F letter grades for schools (invented by Jeb Bush to accelerate privatization) measures nothing more than the wealth or poverty of the district. They would like to revise the simplistic letter grade to a “data dashboard,” reflecting the manic love of all things data.
But John Kasich stands in the way. While pretending to be a moderate Republican for the National media, he is still a right winger at heart.
Imagine a firm created to teach charter schools how to get better results. Imagine that the head of the firm is buddies with the head of the D.C Charter School Board. Imagine that this firm is raking in millions for its amazing advice and plans. Imagine that some people say the firm is amazing, while others say it is gifted at backscratching and connections.
What do you think?
William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, wrote this post for the Blog.
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
A Closer Look at the Changing School Privatization Claims
Flashed on a 1939 version of a jumbotron, the great and mighty Wizard of Oz appears, wreathed in great billows of green smoke, as a reverberating announcement commands Dorothy, the Tin man, the Scarecrow and the Cowardly Lion to “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” Of course, as we all know, the mighty wizard was all pretense, magnification, and illusion flanked by great balls of fire.
And so it has been. The privatization wizards have issued countless press releases saying that charter schools In Boston, Florida, Chicago or almost anywhere else are a great success because of standardized test score increases.
For years this omnipresent claim is that turning schools over to outside contractors will result in grand progress as measured by great leaps – in standardized test scores. All we have to do is follow them down the yellow brick road.
Indeed, Chris Lubienski and Jameson Brewer note in a NEPC review, “a whole generation of school reforms has elevated test scores as the predominant metric by which to judge the worth of policies, as well as of schools, teachers, and even in some cases subjection of public schools to choice regimes through federal policies like No Child Left Behind (NCLB).” (1)
Yet, lately, things have not been so rosy in Oz or for the school privatization wizards. Several recent, large scale and well-designed studies have concluded that privatization has not produced the mighty test score gains promised.
Yet, Toto persisted in chewing on the curtain and ERIC, IES and a host of other scholarly and well-respected organizations concluded there really wasn’t much difference in test scores between public and non-public schools. In fact, in places such as Washington, DC, Indiana, and Louisiana, statewide evaluations have shown no advantage and, ominously, some have found actual test score losses as a result of privatization reforms. (2)
Since their primary argument doesn’t look so good, the reformers now say, “Don’t look behind the curtain! Instead, look over there at attainment.” Attainment is the new goal which is a potpourri of indicators such as graduation rates, higher education attendance, higher education graduation, absenteeism and the like. These are certainly worthy goals which would be embraced by most people. Now, the pro-privatization purposes and measures are being shifting away from testing. In a complete about face, they ask, “Do impacts on Test Scores Even Matter?” (3)
Lubienski and Brewer address this “Don’t look here, look over there” shift-the-goal phenomenon in a recent NEPC think-tank review of an American Enterprise Institute paper presented at the Association for Education Finance and Policy’s annual spring conference. While the study has not been peer reviewed, it was provided with booming publicity by charter advocates. (4)
Fordham’s Michael Petrilli, a prominent advocate for test-based reform, shows remarkable agility (perhaps realizing that the test score results were not very impressive), by concluding that “focusing on test scores may lead authorities to favor the wrong school choice programs. It’s a legitimate concern, and one I share…the experience of attending a private school in the nation’s capital could bring benefits that might not show up until years later: exposure to a new peer group that holds higher expectations in terms of college-going and the like; access to a network of families that opens up opportunities; a religious education that provides meaning, perhaps a stronger grounding in both purpose and character, and that leads to personal growth.”
Buttressing this maudlin appeal to national pride, religion and personal growth, Petrelli shuffles the studies to get a different result and says, “yes, impacts on test scores matter” and urges caution in making too much of research literature that comes to a contrary conclusion.
Robin Lake joins the shift saying, “We now believe effectiveness must be considered more broadly, as preparing children with the knowledge, skills, and analytical capacities necessary for them to navigate the new realities of an information economy and be able to prepare for rapid changes in workforce demand.” (6) The shift from mechanistic hard test scores has the reformees saying “look over there!’ (7)
What’s missing is that we’re more in Kansas than in Oz. This is not Dorothy waking from a bad dream proclaiming “there’s no place like home.” It is a bad reality as many children have no home and society provides Dorothy and her classmates with only ersatz opportunities and facile shifts of words, phrases and promises rather than the reality of good schools for all.
Endnotes:
[1] Lubienski, C. & Brewer, T. J. (2018). Review of “Do Impacts on Test Scores Even Matter? Lessons from Long-Run Outcomes in School Choice Research: Attainment Versus Achievement Impacts and Rethinking How to Evaluate School Choice Programs” Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
[2] Barnum, M. (July 12, 2017). Do School vouchers “work.” As the debate heats up, here’s what research really says. Chalkbeat. Retrieved April 30, 2018 from https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2017/07/12/do-school-vouchers-work-as-the-debate-heats-up-heres-what-research-really-says/
Dynarski, M. (2016, May 26). On Negative Effects of Vouchers. Brookings: https://www.brookings.edu/research/on-negative-effects-of-vouchers/
Turner, C, & Kamenetz. (June 26, 2017) School Vouchers Get 2 New Report Cards. NPR https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/06/26/533192616/school-vouchers-get-a-new-report-card
Spector, C. (February 28,2017). Vouchers do not improve student achievement, Stanford researcher finds. https://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-student-achievement-stanford-researcher-finds/
[3] Hitt, C., McShane, M., & Wolf, P. (2018) Do impacts on test scores even matter? Lessons from long-run outcomes in school choice research: Attainment versus achievement impacts and rethinking how to evaluate school choice programs. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute. http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Do-Impacts-on-Test-Scores-Even-Matter.pdf
[4] Lubienski, C. & Brewer, T. J. (2018). Review of “Do Impacts on Test Scores Even Matter? Lessons from Long-Run Outcomes in School Choice Research: Attainment Versus Achievement Impacts and Rethinking How to Evaluate School Choice Programs” Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
[5] Petrilli, M, (April 17, 2018). For the vast majority of school choice studies, short- and long-term impacts point in the same direction. Fordham Institute. https://edexcellence.net/articles/for-the-vast-majority-of-school-choice-studies-short-and-long-term-impacts-point-in-the
[6] Lake, R. (May 1, 2018). How Can We Get Serious About Successful Pathways for Every Student? Center on Reinventing Public Education.
[7] Saultz, A. et al.(April 2018).Charter School Deserts: High-Poverty Neighborhoods with Limited Educational Options. Fordham Institute. Retrieved May 1, 2018 from https://edexcellence.net/publications/charter-school-deserts-report
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE YOU WILL READ TODAY. SHARE IT WITH YOUR FRIENDS, YOUR SCHOOL BOARD, YOUR LOCAL MEDIA, YOUR ELECTEDS. TWEET IT. POST IT ON FACEBOOK.
In the states where teachers have engaged in walkouts and strikes, public education has been systematically starved of funding. Typically, corporate taxes have been cut so that funding for education has also been cut. The corporations benefit while the children and their teachers are put on a starvation diet.
Who are the corporations and individuals behind the efforts to shrink funding for public schools and promote privatization?
It begins like this, then details a state-by-state list of corporations and billionaires backing the cycle of austerity and school privatization.
“The ongoing wave of teacher strikes across the US is changing the conversation about public education in this country. From West Virginia to Arizona, Kentucky to Oklahoma, Colorado to North Carolina, tens of thousands of teachers have taken to the streets and filled state capitals, garnering public support and racking up victories in some of the nation’s most hostile political terrain.
“Even though the teachers who have gone on strike are paid well below the national average, their demands have gone beyond better salary and benefits for themselves. They have also struck for their students’ needs – to improve classroom quality and to increase classroom resources. Teachers are calling for greater investment in children and the country’s public education system as a whole. They are also demanding that corporations, banks, and billionaires pay their fair share to invest in schools.
“The teachers’ strikes also represent a major pushback by public sector workers against the right-wing agenda of austerity and privatization. The austerity and privatization agenda for education goes something like this: impose big tax cuts for corporations and the .01% and then use declining tax revenue as a rationale to cut funding for state-funded services like public schools. Because they are underfunded, public schools cannot provide the quality education kids deserve. Then, the right wing criticizes public schools and teachers, saying there is a crisis in education. Finally, the right wing uses this as an opportunity to make changes to the education system that benefit them – including offering privatization as a solution that solves the crisis of underfunding.
“While this cycle has put students, parents, and teachers in crisis, many corporations, banks, and billionaires are driving and profiting from it. The key forces driving the austerity and privatization agenda are similar across all the states that have seen strikes:
“*Billionaire school privatizers. A small web of billionaires – dominated by the Koch brothers and their donor network, as well as the Waltons – have given millions to state politicians who will push their pro-austerity, pro-school privatization agenda. These billionaires lead a coordinated, nationwide movement to apply business principles to education, including: promoting CEO-like superintendents, who have business experience but little or no education experience; closing “failing” schools, just as companies close unprofitable stores or factories; aggressively cutting costs, such as by recruiting less experienced teachers; instituting a market-based system in which public schools compete with privately managed charter schools, religious schools, for-profit schools, and virtual schools; and making standardized test scores the ultimate measure of student success.”
Keep reading to learn about the interlocking web that includes the Koch brothers, the Mercers, the Waltons, the fossil fuel industry, their think tanks, and much more, all combined to shrink public schools and replace them with charters and vouchers.
By the way, rightwing billionaire Philip Anschutz of Colorado was the producer of the anti-teacher, anti-public education, pro-charter propaganda film “Waiting for Superman.”
John Merrow recently served as a judge for the Education Writers Association’s annual reporting awards. While admiring the high quality of journalism that he read, he used his post to excoriate Arne Duncan and Margaret Spellings for a self-serving opinion piece that they wrote in The Washington Post.
“Here’s the story that shouldn’t be ignored: The proponents of disastrous ‘school reform,’ which has given us 20+ years of ‘test and punish’ & such, are now positioning themselves as voices of common sense. Exhibit A is this recent Washington Post column by two former Secretaries of Education, Arne Duncan and Margaret Spellings. One guided the Department under George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind,” and other created the infamous “Race to the Top” program.
“Their breath-taking chutzpah begins with the title of the piece: What ails education? ‘An absence of vision, a failure of will and politics.’ But their opening sentence actually tops it: “We have long benefited from a broad coalition that has advanced bold action to improve America’s education system.”
“Just exactly who are the WE that have benefited from the ‘bold action’ that the Secretaries refer to? It’s far easier to identify those who have NOT benefited from “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top.” Let’s start with students, because their performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which everyone agrees is education’s ‘gold standard,’ has basically been flat for the 20+ years of Bush and Obama. Next on the list are teachers, whose salaries and morale have declined over the years of increasing reliance on multiple-choice testing and ‘test-and-punish’ policies. Collateral damage has been done to the occupation of teaching, which has lost prestige and now fails to attract enough candidates to fill our classrooms with qualified instructors.
“So that’s–literally–millions of students and teachers who have NOT benefited from the ‘broad coalition’ that Duncan and Spellings are so proud of.”
Who benefitted from the Duncan-Spellings billions and mandates?
Testing corporations. Ideologues who want to fracture public education. Profiteers. “And–surprise–the two former United States Secretaries of Education. One now leads the University of North Carolina higher education system, and the other is one of three Managing Partners of The Emerson Collective, Laurene Powell Jobs’ very wealthy and active education venture.”
Wow.
He then goes on to enumerate the “reformers” who are now backpedaling or mansplaining, all to avoid responsibility for the disasters of the past 20 years. They (including Duncan and Spellings) are the people we need to be reduced from, says Merrow.
This is one of Merrow’s best pieces. He is on a roll.
Remember all the hype about the amazing District of Columbia schools, about how they had improved more than any other urban district thanks to the reforms launched by Michelle Rhee and nurtured by her successor Kaya Henderson? Test scores rising, graduation rates soaring.
The hype seems to be unraveling.
An audit in January reported that fully 1/3 of graduating students had not met minimum standards to graduate.
Now, G.F. Brandenburg says that the scandals continue.
He writes:
“Not in my wildest dreams could I make this stuff up about how completely incompetent and criminal is the leadership of DC Public Schools. But these incidents are all reported in today’s Washington Post.
“1. The flagship DC high school for the performing arts, Duke Ellington, was found to have fraudulently given about 30% of its highly-coveted student slots to kids whose families neither lived in DC nor paid out-of-state tuition. Those fraudulent slots of course meant that hundreds of talented DC students were rejected. (Part of the reason for Ellington leaders getting away with this is the overlapping public and private leadership of the school, allowing them to report much less detail to any central authority. Similar to the situation in charter schools here and elsewhere.)
“2. Somebody has fraudulently erased the records of unexcused first-semester absences for a bunch of students at Roosevelt SHS so they would be eligible to graduate. These students had been absent so much that they had received Fs. However, their records now indicate that they had ZERO absences in the first quarter. Teachers reported the erasures but are afraid of reprisals.”
He goes on to describe the seniors at Roosevelt HS, where only 29% are on track to graduate. He points out that 38% of the class dropped out.
D.C. used to be the reformers’ favorite district, after New Orleans. Not so much now.
Laura Chapman reviewed the Gates-Zuckerberg alliance and their thoughts about next steps for reformers:
Forget charter schools but not test scores.
Here is where a big pot of money is going next.
“Forget crumbling schools” and “decades old teaching materials.”
That is the wisdom coming from Bob Hughes education leader for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Jim Shelton leader of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative in education collaborators on a new project: Advanced Research and Development on three areas of interest.
Citing the mediocre NAEP tests scores in math and ELA, these hired hands of billionaires say they want to “meaningfully put more students on paths to success after high school. The truth is that we need to dramatically accelerate learning, and to do that, we need to understand it more deeply in order to design teaching environments and support systems that can deliver much better outcomes”
In addition to completely ignoring the crumbling schools and decades old instructional materials to say nothing of pre-judging teachers are too lethargic and muddled in getting students ready for “success” after high school, these two Quick Draw McGraw data-hungry fans of computers and artificial intelligence want to invest in proofs of the efficacy of their interests in 1. Mathematics, 2. Nonfiction writing, and
3. Executive function (the skill set concerning memory, self-control, attention, and flexible thinking). In the press release and invitation to researchers, each of these topics is presented with a brief rationale for inquiry along with the specific interests of these funders—interests that researchers should address.
The program called: Improving Writing: Developing the Requisite Habits, Skills and Strategies is introduced with some moaning about the low “proficiency” scores in writing on NAEP tests presented in a graph with breakouts for sub-groups. That graph is followed by a 2004 claim from a College Board Report that American companies spend about $3.1 billion annually for “writing remediation.” So, the education funders begin with a misunderstanding of “proficient” on NAEP tests, plus an outdated quote about the cost to businesses of remedial writing. That claim also comes from a dubious source of information, the College Board. Apparently a good reason to teach writing faster and better is to save money for business.
The brief rationale ends with a list of ten topics of interest for funding. Researchers are to address one or more of them. Here are a few:
—-“Support for writing planning – Efficient, technology-enhanced approaches to guide the planning of writing projects, for both teachers and students.”
—-“Intelligent tutoring systems for writing – Support processes (including teacher involvement) to develop narrative, descriptive, expository, and/or persuasive writing models that meet or exceed the impact of 1:1 human tutors.”
—-“Artificial Intelligence – Writing-focused AI that can provide analytics and feedback to teachers and students for context, syntax, sentiment or other analytics to improve writing skills.”
—-“’Learning Engineered’ professional development – Professional development and support for writing instruction that is grounded in evidence-based principles of human learning and motivation. “
—-“Writing mindset and motivation – Developing and measuring positive mindsets and motivation around writing capabilities.”
I conclude that tech-oriented proposals are of great interest and viewed as potentially more perfect, precise, intelligent and efficient (time and cost) than human teachers.
For “Improving Mathematical Understanding, Application, and Related Mindsets” the draft proposal begins in the same way, bemoaning NAEP scores but with the expectation that rapid improvement can be gained by computer-assisted approaches that would scale up practices of the “best 1:1 tutors.”
Ten topics of interest for research are outlined, all reeking with jargon about personalized, actionable, and scalable this and that.
—-“Performance-based measures and analytics – New and novel methods for measuring mastery, both procedural and conceptual, and providing immediate, actionable feedback for students and teachers.”
—-“Intelligent tutoring systems – Highly personalized, engaging math tutoring systems that take a whole-student approach and provide actionable information to students and teachers.”
—-“Artificial intelligence – Includes algorithms to improve personalization and/or real-time feedback to the student, virtual assistant technologies to improve engagement and interactivity with students, and support tools for teachers.”
—-“Technology-enhanced content – Innovative and engaging content to integrate in an intelligent tutoring system including, but not limited to, Augmented Reality, (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), games, comics, lecture, laboratories, etc., together with tools to connect teachers into these activities and student progress within them.”
—-“Neuroscience-based measures – Scalable technologies to provide measures of engagement, attention, and comprehension, delivering actionable information to students and teachers while safeguarding student privacy. “
I judge that the funders intend to pursue biometric monitoring of students with devices that give real-time, immediate, actionable feedback to students and teachers. See for example https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-10-26-this-company-wants-to-gather-student-brainwave-data-to-measure-engagement
The final area of interest is Measuring and Improving Executive Function (EF). Because there are no NAEP or other test scores for EF, the funders include references for three studies is support of their desire to improve the development of the executive function (EF) in children, students, teachers and other adults. The funders cite some research to claim that skills for EF—working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control—if strong in childhood, “predict higher socio-economic status, better physical health, and fewer drug-related problems and criminal convictions in adulthood.”
In my opinion, the research citations (three) allow the funders to sidestep the profound influence of poverty on outcomes, shifting attention instead to initiatives that are “scalable, precise, and effective ways to track progress or kinds of interventions to improve EF; ” and to “affordable cost to implement (solutions)- below current market pricing for existing solutions and attainable at a variety of per-student funding levels.” Should we be surprised that the billionaires want low cost and precise interventions at several tiers of per-student funding?
The specific areas of interest for proposals are presented as
—“Tracking progress of student executive function, PreK-12,” especially with unobtrustive, real-time measures of performance;
—“Student-facing interventions/programs/practices/tools to support EF development and use,” including “Technology-enhanced programs in or outside of school: Games, simulations, or other engaging content paired with teacher and family supports…”
—”Measures of educator EF and environmental EF supports,” including…”scalable, valid and reliable, repeatable, pragmatic measures of … (an) educator’s own EF within student learning contexts;” “Adult capacity to support EF growth in students, and technology-enhanced programs for these.”
—-“Critical field-building research topics, including, EF precursor skills”…such as “autonomy, supportive teaching and caregiving;” neuroscience connections such as “neural underpinnings of EF intervention effects, neural developmental progressions, compensatory pathways vs. EF improvement in the brain” and interactions between EF and other factors (e.g., stress, biology, motivation) toward academic and nonacademic outcomes/behaviors.” WHEW.
I conclude that this last area of interest is intended to increase the use of surveillance systems in classrooms with these devices targeted to capture student behavior and teacher behavior without them being aware of the data-gathering. There is clearly a desire to get data and issue judgments about teachers and adults as more or less competent that technologies in supporting improved EF. Surveillance systems are built into games and mobile technologies. These are also of interest as sources of data for improving EF—self control, delayed gratification, and cognitive flexibility. In addition, the funders have an interest in neurology— a medical understanding of EF and intervention effects, captured with biometric monitoring.
It is worth noting that all of these research interests call for a data-gathering on individual students (and teachers). All three initiatives ask researchers to “ identify ”possible privacy implications and strategies for ensuring the privacy and security of information.” Meanwhile Gates is among many others who are marketing tech-centric personalized learning and leading initiatives to get rid of FERPA constraints for any research intended to improve student outcomes.
Welcome to the brave new world of tech-mediated interventions and hope for “precise” solutions to accelerated learning of the kind these billionaires want to invest in.
Click to access FERPA%20Exceptions_HANDOUT_horizontal_0_0.pdf
http://k12education.gatesfoundation.org/researchanddevelopment/
The Los Angeles Unified School District board voted to appoint a wealthy investment banker, Austin Beutner, as its superintendent by a vote of 4-3. The deciding vote was cast by Ref Rodriguez, a charter founder who is waiting to stand trial on multiple felony indictments related to campaign finance. The initial vote was kept secret for more than a week. Then another vote to taken to offer a contract to Mr. Beutner, and that was approved 5-2.
After many years as an investment banker, Beutner served briefly as deputy mayor of Los Angeles and served briefly as publisher of the Los Angeles Times. He has a close association with Eli Broad, the octogenarian billionaire who has declared his hope to put half the students in the nation’s second largest school district into privately managed charter schools.
The two career educators on the board were the dissenters. Scott Schmerelson released a statement decrying Beutner’s lack of any education experience.
George McKenna issued this statement today.
For Immediate Release May 2, 2018
Contact: Patrice Marshall McKenzie (213) 259-9763
STATEMENT FROM BOARD MEMBER DR. GEORGE J. MCKENNA III
REGARDING THE SELECTION OF LAUSD SUPERINTENDENT
As an experienced lifelong public-school educator, I feel compelled to voice my dissent regarding the selection of a non-educator to lead the second-largest school district in the nation.
In an abbreviated and rushed process without open community forums or input from school and District staff, parents and students, a majority of the Board of Education selected the new superintendent with a 5 to 2 vote. This choice of a person with no experience as an educator in K-12 school districts reflects the lack of concern for the continuity and stability of the District.
The premise that a non-educator is a better fit to lead a large educational organization because of limited managerial experience in outside business experiences is fundamentally flawed and politically motivated. To intentionally seek non-educators to serve as superintendents reflects a lack of respect for the professional educators who have demonstrated effective service and leadership within school systems, along with a denial of the Board’s ultimate responsibility to establish policies that govern the District and hold the Superintendent accountable.
The primary purpose of a school district is to establish and adequately resource effective schools, which are ultimately dependent on teachers, administrators and other school site staff. The dream of business-style governance being used in an urban school district to turnaround failing schools and/or lessen the achievement gap is a myth that has not materialized. This continued experiment on the neediest students and families is an injustice and an avoidance of the reality that our communities need the best educational leadership that be found.
Despite the enthusiasm by some for “outside” and “non-traditional” leadership for school districts, the reality is that this strategy never results in the reversal of underachievement in our neediest schools and communities. It is hard to believe that a governing board of a multi-billion dollar company would hire an inexperienced novice to lead their company in time of greatest need. This decision was predetermined by outside influences with a profit and political motive that will continue to expand without providing adequate resources to our neediest schools.
Although this decision was predictable and disappointing, I encourage our great team of employees and parents to continue communicating their needs and concerns to the superintendent, to me and the other Board Members.
###
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 24th Floor / Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone (213) 241-6382 Facsimile (213) 241-8441 E-Mail:George.mckenna@lausd.net
Eric Blanc, writing in the Jacobin magazine, describes the epic battle that is unfolding in Arizona between the privatization movement and most of the state’s teachers.
For most of the past two decades, the archconservatives and ALEC have sought to destroy public education in the state.
Can the striking teachers change the narrative?
”Winning won’t be easy. Arizona’s educators have powerful enemies. And the prevalence of charter schools across the state is a serious obstacle in the current strike. But if Red For Ed can sustain its momentum in the coming days and months, it just might be able to reverse the privatizing tide…
”Arizona has long been a favored target of the right-wing Koch Institute and ALEC, a hyper-conservative Koch-funded corporate legislation mill. A number of leading Arizonan politicians are deeply embedded in, and indebted to, these bodies. Governor Doug Ducey has been part of the Koch network since 2011 and more than a third of Republican legislators were wined and dined last year at ALEC’s annual summit to promote “free-market” model legislation.”
Beth Lewis, a leader of the #RedForEd movement, said last week,
“Why are teachers being forced to do more with less every single year? Our legislators, our state leaders, simply refuse to invest in our public schools. Our governor and many of our state leaders are being propped up by out-of-state big money donors. That’s the reason we are here. These people want to push things like voucher schemes to take money out of our already starving public schools.”
The state is awash in charter schools and voucher schools. And behind many of them is the pursuit of money.
“Since 1994, Arizona has witnessed a proliferation of state-financed but privately run charter schools. With over 180,000 charter students, Arizona now has proportionally more than any state in the US. ALEC was clearly justified in ranking Arizona number one in its Report Card on American Education.
“Many of these schools generate millions of dollars in private revenue. In 2014–2015, for example, BASIS charter schools made just under$60 million for the for-profit BASIS corporation that services its schools. “It’s true that some charters want to do right by students and staff, but they are few and far between,” notes Owen Kerr, a ninth-year Arizonan math teacher who was formerly employed at Imagine and BASIS charter schools. “Business is business. So I can see that though a number of charters try to do things differently, most are set up to make money.”
Charter schools are largely unaccountable. Teacher turnover is high. Working conditions are poor.
“The negative effects of privatization go far beyond draining public funds. Unlike real public schools, which are generally subject to the oversight of democratically elected school boards and superintendents, charters are accountable only to their own internal boards plus the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools, whose members are appointed by the governor. In the absence of real oversight, Arizona’s charters have been plagued by fraud and financial scandals…
”Politicians like Governor Ducey tout the high test scores achieved by charter schools such as BASIS, while conveniently overlooking the fact that these scores were produced by excluding or pushing out students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Many working-class families are deterred from applying to charter lotteries, since charters do not have to provide free lunch or transportation to school, unlike regular public institutions. For students who do make it into the charter system, rates of attrition are very high. Arizona charters are often particularly inhospitable to students with special needs or learning disabilities. Kevin Brown, a school psychologist in the Washington Elementary School District, notes that “‘school choice’ is just a nice way of saying that all the high performers need to be segregated from low performers (students and families who are disadvantaged socially and economically).”
The #RedForEd movement has awakened the public to the dire condition of education in Arizona. Will the public stay awake?
We will find out in November, when the reactionary Governor Ducey faces a Democratic opponent, educator David Garcia, who is allied with the striking teachers.
Parent activists are still in a state of shock in Los Angeles in reaction to the board’s selection of the totally unqualified banker Austin Beutner as Superintendent.
Reportedly a billionaire like his pal Eli Broad, although possibly only a multimillionaire, he will be paid $350,000 for his inexperience.
The first order of business will be downsizing the district, which has lost students to charter schools. Instead of fighting to regain students, Beutner will encourage the growth of privatization.
He is the quintessential corporate reformer who can be counted on to bring the mindset of a corporate raider: cut costs, cut staff, reorganize, downsize.
Beutner is everything that Broad loves in a Superintendent: a reformer dedicated to swing the axe, close schools, and fire educators.
Howard Blume writes:
””Beutner and members of the board majority seem unlikely to continue targeting charter schools as part of the problem. On the contrary, they are widely expected to take steps to encourage their growth in a range of schooling options for families, especially with academic performance lagging at many traditional campuses.
”That means the district has to look to other ways to increase revenue — a goal held in common with the prior board — and may try to reduce district spending by shrinking the traditional school system. Savings could come through employee layoffs, closing campuses and freezing or reducing salaries and benefits.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 