Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

 

Lisa Haver and Deborah Grill pose this question in an incisive article in the Philadelphia Inquirer. 

There was a national media flap when billionaire investor Stephen Schwarzman offered his alma mater in Abington, Pennsylvania, $25 million in exchange for renaming the school, putting his name over six entrances, and changing the curriculum to meet his demands. Ultimately, the board refused some but not all of his requirements.

Haver and Grill worked in the Philadelphia public schools. They say, “Welcome to our world,” where the Uber-rich have owned the public schools for years and run them into the ground.

”In November 2011, the state-imposed School Reform Commission (SRC), absent any public deliberation, approved a multimillion-dollar grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In return, the SRC agreed to several conditions, including yearly charter expansion, implementation of Common Core standards, more school “choice” and testing, and permanent school closures. No one elected Bill Gates, typically portrayed in the media as just a very generous rich guy, to make decisions about Philadelphia’s public schools. But his mandates have had devastating and lasting effects on the district, much more than renaming one school.”

No one elected Bill Gates. An unelected board outsourced control of the Philadelphia public schools to an unaccountable billionaire. Why? Money. No evidence. No research. No wisdom. Just money. Goal: Privatization. Means: Silence the public.

“Here in Philadelphia, the Gates Compact conferred authority upon the Philadelphia School Partnership (PSP) “to provide funding …to low-performing or developing schools.” PSP has since raised tens of millions from a stable of wealthy donors; most has gone to charter schools, in keeping with Gates’ pro-privatization ideology. PSP’s influence has grown in the last seven years: the group now funds and operates teacher and principal training programs, oversees a website rating all Philadelphia schools, and holds the district’s yearly high school fair. PSP’s money, like Schwarzman’s, always comes with strings attached, whether that means changing a school’s curriculum or a complete overhaul of faculty and staff, as its 2014 grant to two North Philadelphia schools mandated.”

The PSP meetings are closed to the public. Its board members are wealthy suburbanites.

There is something to be said for democracy. Why has Philadelphia prevented its citizens from having any role in the o ersight of the public schools? Could those who have a genuine stake in them do worse than the rich dilettantes who control them now?

 

 

 

 

 

Jack Hassard, professor of science education, assesses creeping authoritarianism and the growing resistance to it among educators.

“The authoritarianism of standardization has spread harm and inflicted damage to America’s public schools during the last two decades. The profits from standardized tests and teaching materials associated with the Common Core have overwhelmed the nature of learning in public school classrooms that one wonders if this goliath, which has trampled on the very heart of education in a democratic society, can be brought down.

“The conservative world-view is at the root of standardization, not only in the United States, but in most countries around the world. This world-view has set in motion the reform of education based on a common set of standards, high-stakes tests, and accountability metrics that demoralize not only students and their families, but the educators who families regard as significant and positive others in the lives of their children.

“I think of standards-based education reform as a kind of “spray” analogous to how we used DDT as an agricultural insecticide. We sprayed it everywhere to stamp out disease carrying bugs. For example, from 1940 – 1972, more than 1.3 billion pounds of DDT were released into U.S. communities indiscriminately. This indiscriminate and relentless spray would eventually be shown to be harmful and a serious threat to the basics of ecosystems.”

Hassard describes the fight to block authoritarianism in education, which is closely aligned with the resistance to authoritarianism in the public arena.

He writes about a vanguard of resistors, some of whom are gentle and others not so gentle (he uses the word “gentile” but I think that is an error or auto-correct gone amok, as I am neither gentile nor gentle).

”So, what is this vanguard voicing opposition to? All are questioning the lack of wisdom, profound ignorance, and inexcusable ineptness of an educational reform movement that is rooted in a very narrow purpose of schooling: teaching to the test. According to Sahlberg, the movement can be summarized in four words: Global Education Reform Movement GERM).”

Are you part of GERM or part of the resistance. Chances are, if you are reading this post, you are part of the Resistance.

 

 

The highest court in Massachusetts ruled unanimously that the cap on charter schools is constitutional. 

It tossed out an effort by charter advocates to win in the judicial system what they lost at the polls in a state referendum in 2016, when the public voted against expanding the number of charter schools.

In an opinion issued Tuesday, Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court dismissed a complaint that the cap on the number of charter schools allowed to operate in state violates students’ rights under the state’s constitution.

The unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kimberly Budd, affirmed a lower-court decision made in October 2016. It holds that even when public schools under-serve their students, that doesn’t mean state actors are failing in their constitutional duties — or that opening more charter schools is the only way to make it right.

The decision represents a third and possibly decisive setback for the proposal to lift the longstanding cap. In 2015, legislators decided against advancing Gov. Charlie Baker’s bill for more charter schools, instead leaving the choice to voters — who then voted it down by a 24-point margin in 2016.

It’s cause for disappointment and frustration among supporters of those schools, and for students and families who hoped to get in off their wait lists.

“Watching your own children have to suffer in a school that’s underperforming — and knowing that it’s the result of a political turf war… it’s crushing. It’s devastating.”

Keri Rodrigues

 Keri Rodrigues is one of those people. She’s an education activist who supported Question 2 in 2016. Now, she runs Massachusetts Parents United — an advocacy group supported in part by the pro-charter Walton Foundation. She has two sons who have tried and failed to get seats in a charter school. “Watching your own children have to suffer in a school that’s underperforming — and knowing that it’s the result of a political turf war… it’s crushing. It’s devastating…”

The plaintiffs argued that missed opportunity amounted to a violation of their shared right to an adequate public education, or to equal protection under the laws, as laid out in the state constitution.

The SJC opinion accepts the plaintiffs’ arguments that, under Massachusetts’ constitution, state leaders must provide all students with an “adequate education,” and that “the education provided at their schools is, at the moment, inadequate” based on testing data.

But the court rejected the plaintiffs’ conclusions. The opinion holds that state officials and lawmakers must be allowed to work to improve poorly-performing schools, and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the state’s current approach — including oversight and takeover of chronically underperforming schools — couldn’t jump-start progress “over a reasonable period of time.”

Rodrigues wasn’t persuaded. “Over what period of time are we talking about? Because parents get roughly 12 years to get their kids an adequate education,” she said. “So are we just supposed to roll the dice and hope the commonwealth is able to figure this out?”

But the SJC opinion goes further. It argues that even if students’ constitutional rights were definitively being violated, it still wouldn’t mean the charter program must be expanded. The opinion states, “There is no constitutional entitlement to attend charter school,” and further, that the court is barred from enforcing any “fundamentally political” remedy of that kind.

The decision, in short, says that the state has an affirmative duty to improve low-performing schools, not an affirmative duty to open privately managed charter schools.

Rodrigues was state director for the now-defunct Families for Excellent Schools (also Walton-funded), which bundled millions of dollars for the failed “Yes on 2” charter expansion referendum; she is now executive director of Massachusetts Parents United, another astroturf group created by Walton and other charter advocacy organizations.

Unlike most parent organizations, Massachusetts Parents United started its life with $1.5 million in projected income and more on the way from the Waltons and other friends. 

The decision affirmed that the charter advocacy groups cannot rely upon the judicial system to overturn the 2016 referendum that said NO to more charter schools.

 

Matt Barnum of Chalkbeat obtained additional portions of the postmortem analysis of why the corporate reformers lost in a state referendum to expand charter schools in Massachusetts (here is his first report). It makes for fascinating reading, both his summary and the original document itself. The Walton family and their allies invested millions in the referendum, hoping to increase the number of privately-managed charter schools in the Bay State. The Walton Education Coalition funded the postmortem, hoping to learn from the resounding defeat of the “Yes on 2” campaign.

The referendum was held in November 2016. “Yes on 2” advocated for expanding the number of charters in the state by 12 per year, anywhere in the state, indefinitely. “No on 2” warned that charters took funding away from local public schools. The YES campaign was funded by the Waltons, out-of-state financiers and corporate interests, and the New York City-based Families for Excellent Schools (FES). The NO campaign was funded mostly by the unions (including the National AFT and NEA) and small individual contributions. The YES campaign spent about $25 Million, the NO campaign spent about $15 Million. The successful message of the NO campaign boiled down to: “Do you support public schools or school privatization?”

If you read the original memo, you will see that the consulting firm really doesn’t understand why voters supported their local public schools and trusted teachers rather than the governor. Massachusetts public schools are the best in the nation, which raises the question of why the Waltons and FES decided this state was ready for privatization. Maybe they thought that if they could win in Massachusetts, they could win anywhere.

The second memo paints Massachusetts Teachers Association President Barbara Madeloni as a radical villain, because she outsmarted the charter lobbyists. She mobilized teachers and parents and did not compromise, and her side won. The consultants don’t understand or sympathize with her point of view, so they call her an “ideologue,” who “vowed to stop the corporate takeover of the public schools.” She beat the privatizers, and she rallied the public to save their public schools. I’d call her a successful strategist.

Their recommendation to the Waltons and other charter friendly groups is that in the next battle, they must activate charter teachers to sell their message, to counter the messaging of public school teachers. In liberal states, they said, the charter advocates must pretend to be liberals:

” Consider specific Democratic messages, or at least targeted messages, particularly in liberal states. Advocates should test owning the progressive mantle on education reform and charters: this is about social justice, civil rights, and giving kids a chance. While this is a problematic frame for the electorate as a whole, it may speak to the values of a Democratic electorate. The initial message recommendations to refrain from splintering the electorate was not wrong; this messaging discussing achievement gaps or inequality have sunk in other case studies. However, it could be the right approach for liberals in this new Administration.”

There is something inherently ironic—if not comical—about the notion of the far-right anti-union Walton Family donning the garb of “social justice” and “civil rights” to sell their non-union charter chains.

After the Question 2 referendum was defeated by a large margin, the Massachusetts campaign finance board fined Families for Excellent Schools $426,000 dollars for failing to reveal the names of its donors (“Dark Money”) and banned it from operating in Massachusetts for five years. Soon after, FES closed its doors in reaction to a #MeToo scandal involving its CEO.

Supporters of public schools can learn about the thinking of the charter lobbyists by reading these memos and preparing for the battles ahead, if the charter lobbyists ever again dare to compete in a referendum instead of their customary practice of giving campaign contributions to legislators and governors.

Maurice Cunningham, the University of Massachusetts political science professor who tracks Dark Money, said this on Twitter about the secret memo:

“My initial reading reaction. 1. Without Walton and Strategic Grant Partners money, there is no Q2. 2. Voters hate Walton money and corporate education interests – the whole Financial Privatization Cabal. 3. @bmadeloni was absolutely right. #MaEdu #mapoli #bospoli”

 

 

Guy Brandenburg is a retired teacher of mathematics who taught in the D.C. public schools. He was very likely the first person to publicly explode the myth of Michelle Rhee, having pursued her initial claims about miraculously raising the scores of the students she taught as a new TFA teacher from the 13th percentile to the 90th percentile.

He continues to watch the D.C. schools, and he recently attended the public unveiling of NAEP scores for 2017. He was reviewing them in separate posts, and I invited him to combine them into a single post. He generously agreed to do so.

For his diligence and persistence as a researcher and whistle-blower, I name Guy Brandenburg to the honor roll of this blog.

He writes:

NATIONAL TEST SCORES IN DC WERE RISING FASTER UNDER THE ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD THAN THEY HAVE BEEN DOING UNDER THE APPOINTED CHANCELLORS

By Guy Brandenburg

Add one more to the long list of recent DC public education scandals* in the era of education ‘reform’:

DC’s NAEP** test scores are increasing at a lower rate now (after the elected school board was abolished in 2007) than they were in the decade before that.

This is true in every single subgroup I looked at: Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, 4th graders, 8th graders, in reading, and in math.

Forget what you’ve heard about DC being the fastest-growing school district. Our NAEP scores were going up faster before our first Chancellor, Michelle Rhee, was appointed than they have been doing since that date.

Last week, the 2017 NAEP results were announced at the National Press Club building here on 14th Street NW, and I went in person to see and compare the results of 10 years of education ‘reform’ after 2007 with the previous decade. When I and others used the NAEP database and separated out average scale scores for black, Hispanic, and white students in DC, at the 4th and 8th grade levels, in both reading and math, even I was shocked:

In every single one of these twelve sub-groups, the rate of change in scores was WORSE (i.e., lower) after 2007 (when the chancellors took over) than it was before that date (when we still had an elected school board).
I published the raw data, taken from the NAEP database, as well as graphs and short analyses, on my blog, (gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com) which you can inspect if you like.

I will give you two examples:

• Black 4th grade students in DC in math (see https://bit.ly/2JbORad ):

o In the year 2000, the first year for which I had comparable data, that group got an average scale score of 188 (on a scale of 0 – 500). In the year 2007, the last year under the elected school board, their average scale score was 209, which is an increase of 21 points in 7 years, for an average increase of 3.0 points per year, pre-‘reform’.

o After a decade of ‘reform’ DC’s black fourth grade students ended up earning an average scale score of 224, which is an increase of 15 points over 10 years. That works out to an average growth of 1.5 points per year, under direct mayoral control.

o So, in other words, Hispanic fourth graders in DC made twice the rate of progress on the math NAEP under the elected school board than they did under Chancellors Rhee, Henderson, and Wilson.

• Hispanic 8th grade students in DC in reading (see: https://bit.ly/2HhSP0z )

o In 1998, the first year for which I had data, Hispanic 8th graders in DC got an average scale score of 246 (again on a scale of 0-500). In 2007, which is the last year under the elected board of education, they earned an average scale score of 249, which is an increase of only 3 points.

o However, in 2017, their counterparts received an average scale score of 242. Yes, the score went DOWN by 7 points.

o So, under the elected board of education, the scores for 8th grade Latinx students went up a little bit. But under direct mayoral control and education ‘reform’, their scores actually dropped.

That’s only two examples. There are actually twelve such subgroups (3 ethnicities, times 2 grade levels, times 2 subjects), and in every single case progress was worse after 2007 than it was beforehand.

Not a single exception.

You can see my last blog post on this, with links to other ones, here:

https://gfbrandenburg.wordpress.com/2018/04/20/progress-or-not-for-dcs-8th-graders-on-the-math-naep/ or https://bit.ly/2K3UyZ1 .

Amazing.

Why isn’t there more outrage?

*For many years, DC officials and the editorial board of the Washington Post have been bragging that the educational ‘reforms’ enacted under Chancellor Michelle Rhee and her successors have made DCPS the fastest-improving school district in the entire nation. (See https://wapo.st/2qPRSGw or https://wapo.st/2qJn7Dh for just two examples.)

It didn’t matter how many lies Chancellor Rhee told about her own mythical successes in a privately run school in Baltimore (see https://wapo.st/2K28Vgy ). She also got away with falsehoods about the necessity of firing hundreds of teachers mid-year for allegedly being sexual predators or abusers of children (see https://wapo.st/2qNGxqB ); there were always acolytes like Richard Whitmire willing to cheer her on publicly (see https://wapo.st/2HC0zOj ), even though the charges were false.

A lot of stories about widespread fraud in the District of Columbia public school system have hit the front pages recently. Examples:

• Teachers and administrators were pressured to give passing grades and diplomas to students who missed so much school (and did so little work) that they were ineligible to pass – roughly one-third of last year’s graduating class. (see https://bit.ly/2ngmemi ) You may recall that the rising official (but fake) high school graduation rate in Washington was a used as a sign that the reforms under direct mayoral control of education had led to dramatic improvements in education here.

• Schools pretended that their out-of-school suspension rates had been dropping, when in actual fact, they simply were suspending students without recording those actions in the system. (see https://wapo.st/2HhbARS )

• Less than half of the 2018 senior class is on track to graduate because of truancy, failed classes, and the like. (see https://bit.ly/2K5DFx9 )

• High-ranking city officials, up to and including the Chancellor himself, cheated the system by having their own children bypass long waiting lists and get admitted to favored schools. (see https://wapo.st/2Hk3HLi )

• A major scandal in 2011 about adults erasing and changing student answer sheets on the DC-CAS test at many schools in DC in order to earn bonuses and promotions was unfortunately swept under the rug. (see https://bit.ly/2HR4c0q )

• About those “public” charter schools that were going to do such a miraculous job in educating low-income black or brown children that DCPS teachers supposedly refused to teach? Well, at least forty-six of those charter schools (yes, 46!) have been closed down so far, either for theft, poor performance on tests, low enrollment, or other problems. (see https://bit.ly/2JcxIx9 ).

**Data notes:

A. NAEP, or the National Assessment of Educational Progress, is given about every two years to a carefully chosen representative sample of students all over the USA. It has a searchable database that anybody with a little bit of persistence can learn to use: https://bit.ly/2F5LHlS .

B. I did not do any comparable measurements for Asian-Americans or Native Americans or other such ethnic/racial groups because their populations in DC are so small that in most years, NAEP doesn’t report any data at all for them.

C. In the past, I did not find big differences between the scores of boys and girls, so I didn’t bother looking this time.

D. Other categories I could have looked at, but didn’t, include: special education students; students whose first language isn’t English; economically disadvantaged students; the various percentiles; and those just in DCPS versus all students in DC versus charter school students. Feel free to do so, and report what you find!

E. My reason for not including figures separated out for only DCPS, and only DC Charter Schools, is that NAEP didn’t provide that data before about 2011. I also figured that the charter schools and the regular public schools, together, are in fact the de-facto public education system that has grown under both the formerly elected school board and the current mayoral system, so it was best to combine the two together.

F. I would like to thank Mary Levy for compiling lots of data about education in DC, and Matthew Frumin for pointing out these trends. I would also like to thank many DC students, parents, and teachers (current or otherwise) who have told me their stories.

 

Have you been missing Campbell Brown? There was a long period when she stepped forth to position herself as the symbol of the corporate reform movement, warning the world to be wary of public schools loaded with pedophile teachers who were protected by unions and tenure. As Michelle Rhee faded away, Campbell Brown’s star rose in the corporate reform firmament.

Her Partnership for Educational Justice launched lawsuits against tenure, none of which have been successful. She garnered millions from the usual billionaires to start a news site called The 74 Million, to sing the praises of charter schools and privatization.  She served on the board of Betsy DeVos’s American Federation for Children, which handed out millions of dollars to fund candidates who support charters and vouchers. Betsy, in turn, funded The 74 Million.

But now she has left us! She has joined the messaging team at Facebook, where she is smoothing ruffled feathers and soothing angry critics. In this long profile in the New York Times, Campbell’s role as the dragon slayer of public schools gets only a few paragraphs.

Here is what the New York Times says about Campbell’s foray into education as the new Michelle Rhee:

But after leaving CNN, Ms. Brown did shed her journalistic skin, and turned herself into a political animal.

“Ms. Brown became an activist focused on education. She fought teachers’ unions, a tactic some friends think was meant to position her for a run for office. A New York Magazine profile once posed the question, “How did an ex-news anchor become the most controversial woman in school reform?”

“She was a celebrity in ed reform,” said Eva Moskowitz, the founder and chief executive of the Success Academy Charter Schools, where Ms. Brown is a board member. “We just didn’t have people of her prominence before.”

“Ms. Brown also started an education news site called The 74 Million, which often reports on issues around teachers’ unions, and an advocacy group called The Partnership for Educational Justice, which funded a lawsuit against teacher tenure. She served on the board of Betsy DeVos’s American Federation for Children. (Ms. Devos has funded The 74 Million.) When President Trump nominated Ms. DeVos to be Secretary of Education last year, Ms. Brown wrote an op-ed in her defense, calling Ms. DeVos a “friend.”

“By then, Facebook was in crisis mode over how it handled news.”

Her career as the nation’s leader in the fight to crush teachers, unions, and public schools has receded into the background, perhaps ended.

Who will be the new face of corporate reform? Who will be the next bold reformer to grace the cover of TIME magazine, broom in hand, as Rhee once did?

Campbell Brown, we hardly knew ye.

 

If you have nothing better to do today or tonight, you might enjoy watching my presentation to a lively audience at the Lensic Center in Santa  Fe, where I spoke about the negative result of eight years of “reform” based on the Florida model.

Since I will soon turn 80 and am ending my lecture career to turn to writing a new book (my last, I assume), I didn’t hold back. The warmth of the audience unleashed me to say what was in my mind and in my heart about the fraud that is now called “reform” (but is really privatization).

New Mexico has the highest rate of child poverty (under the age of 5) in the nation at 36.2%,  five points higher than Mississippi, which is in second place. It also has one of the nation’s highest rates of adult poverty. But the education leaders in New Mexico thought they could cure poverty with testing and teacher evaluation. All of it failed. New Mexico, with all its beauty and splendor, has made no education progress during these past eight years of “reform.”

Jesse Hagopian, teacher and author at Garfield High School in Seattle, who led a strike against mandated standardized testing at that school, introduced me and joined in conversation after I spoke.

 

Our very own blog poet has written a wonderful new poem.

“Jabbertalky” (after Jabberwocky, by Lewis Carroll, of course)

“Twas brillig, and the billionaires
Did lie and dissemble in the press
All flimsy were Deformer wares
And the charter rats did nest

“Beware the Jabbertalk my son!
The Cores that bite, the tests that catch!
Beware the Coleman bird, and shun
Felonius charters, natch!”

“He took his opt-out sword in hand:
Long time Deformer foe he sought —
So rested he by the Knowledge tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

”And, as in peaceful thought he stood,
The Jabbertalk, with eyes of flame,
Came bumbling through the teaching wood,
And burbled as it came!

“One, two! One, two! And through and through
The opt-out blade went snicker-snack!
He left test dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And, has thou slain the Jabbertalk?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’
He chortled in his joy.

“Twas brillig, and the billionaires
Did lie and dissemble in the press
All flimsy were Deformer wares
And the charter rats did nest”

 

When I read about the demise of Toys “R” Us in the New York Times, I was reminded of the business books I read to understand the corporate raiders who caused the collapse of many iconic American businesses. Michael Milken, junk bond king and founder of the online charter chain K12 Inc., bought control of undervalued businesses, broke them up into parts, kept the profitable parts, discarded the unprofitable parts, and loaded them up with debt. The investors made money but the company disappeared under a mountain of debt.

The reality is that Toys “R” Us, which announced on Thursday that it would shutter or sell all of its stores in the United States, never had much chance at a turnaround.

For over a decade, Toys “R” Us had been drowning in $5 billion of debt, which its private equity backers had saddled it with. With debt payments siphoning off cash every year, Toys “R” Us could not properly invest in its worn-out suburban stores or outdated website. Sales plummeted, as Amazon captured more children’s desires — and their parents’ wallets — for Star Wars Legos and Paw Patrol recycling trucks.

Toys “R” Us is the latest failure of financial engineering, albeit one that could portend a potentially more ominous outlook for private equity in the digital era.

Most buyouts tend to work the same way. A private equity firm takes over a troubled company with the goal of sprucing up the strategy, cutting costs and overhauling the business over three or five years. But they often load up a company with debt to pay for the deal, which can prove problematic if the profits do not perk up.

Once the vultures began to pick over the bones, the company was done for.

This is the model for corporate education reform. The reformers arrive with promises of “saving poor kids trapped in failing schools.”

Then they open privately managed schools that choose the  kids they want and exclude those they don’t want. Eventually the public school system teeters on the edge of financial collapse, but the reformers say it is not their fault. But it is. It is baked into their business model. Cut costs. Hire inexperienced teachers. Work them 60-70 hours a week to be sure they don’t hang around long enough to expect a pension or healthcare. Demand free space from the public schools. Or, buy your own real estate and pay yourself exorbitant rents. Spend more on administrative overhead than on instruction.

And don’t forget to say, “It’s for the kids! Kids First! Children First! Students First!”

It is summed up in a comment by a reader of the blog:

All choice options promoted by the DOE fail the “equal access” goal of its mission. Choice is often about selection of best and discarding of the weak, problematic, expensive and struggling. Choice has resulted in increased segregation. Choice is enhancing more separate and unequal treatment of students, not equal access.

 

 

 

I was invited to speak in Santa Fe about the state of education by the Lannan Foundation. Jesse Hagopian, the great teacher activist and test critic from Garfield High School in Seattle, was the interlocutor, who arranged the invitation, introduced me, and led a discussion afterwards.

Here is a summary of the talk.

New Mexico is a purple state with a Republican Governor. The governor brought in Hanna Skandera, an associate of Jeb Bush, to lead the state education department. Skandera introduced every element of the corporate reform program. None of it worked. New Mexico vies with Mississippi and Louisiana for the lowest NAEP scores in the nation. It also has the highest child poverty rate in the nation, at 36%, worse than child poverty in Mississippi. But nothing was done to reduce poverty over the past decade. Instead of doing anything about poverty, medical care, or hunger,  Skandera and Governor Martinez pushed test-based teacher evaluation, charter schools, and school grades. The ultimate endorsement of the vaunted Florida model that Betsy DeVos applauds. The result? Nada. Zip. Zilch.