Archives for category: Corporate Reformers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Horace Mann League Honors Carol Burris as Outstanding Friend of Public Education: This is What She Said

By dianeravitch
March 6, 2018 //
9

 

The Horace Mann League honored Carol Burris as the Outstanding Friend of Public Education of the year. The award was presented by the distinguished research scientist David Berliner.

Burris, who has has a long career as a teacher and much-honored principal in Rockville Center, Long Island, New York, released her notes. 

She said:

“Thank you, David, for your kind remarks. And to all, thank you so much for this wonderful honor. To receive an award in Horace Mann’s name—well no award could be more treasured. I am thrilled. I also deeply appreciate the opportunity to speak to all of you today.

“I am often asked if I am afraid for the future of public education. No, I am not afraid. Fear is an inadequate descriptor. I am terrified. Here is why.

“Earlier this month, at the American Enterprise Institute this is how Jeb Bush defined public school districts.:

“12 or 13,000 government-run, unionized, politicized, monopolies. “We call them school districts,” he said.

“When I hear someone define a system of community schools, governed by unpaid volunteers elected by their neighbors as a “government-run, unionized, politicized, monopolies”– there is one thing I know for sure about the speaker—he does not want to improve that system, he does not want to compete with that system, he wants to destroy it.

“This is a summary of the state of school privatization in the United States today:

*15 states have voucher programs, some have several that cater to different student groups.
*6 states have Education Savings Accounts. New Hampshire will likely approve an ESA program within months, bringing the total to seven.
*18 states have tax tuition credit/scholarship programs. Many of these programs give a 100% credit to businesses for donations to scholarships for private schools which makes them a pass-through of public funds to private schools. Some allow the donations to become profitable when they are also deducted on federal returns.
*9 states have individual tax credits and deductions for private school tuition.
*44 states allow charter schools. Of those 44, only 4 vest full authority to the district.
*4 states allow for-profit charters, and 36 states all for-profit management to run the nonprofit charter schools.
*36 states allow virtual online charter schools, nearly all of which are for-profit.

“Of all of the various school privatization schemes, Educational Savings Accounts are in my opinion, the worst. They have become the preferred program of the Koch Brothers, the Goldwater Institute, the Friedman Foundation, Jeb Bush and others. ESAs are at their essence a cynical ploy that reduces society’s obligation to educate our nation’s youth to the dropping of tax dollars onto a debit card

“6 states have ESAs: Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Nevada. Nevada’s program is non-operational and unfunded. Last year, more than 20 state legislatures introduced ESA bills, with the proposed programs nearly always going by a different name. For example, ESAs are called Gardiner Scholarships in Florida, Individualized Education Accounts in Tennessee and Empowerment Scholarships in Arizona. Despite the different names, intended to hide, the joint effort by ALEC to promote the same basic bill, they operate in similar ways.

“Parents pledge to not enroll their son or daughter in a public school or a charter school. In exchange, they get nearly all of what the public school would have spent (usually 90%) placed on a debit card or in an account. This unaccountable and unregulated system is one in which families could easily be victimized by misinformation, false claims, profiteering and fraud. This is not lost on the proponents of ESAs. That is why they have developed all kinds of language to make ESAs seem hip and cutting edge. For example, parents are called “customizers” who choose “a la carte services” that they can select from online marketplaces. What they are really advocating, however, is a return to a time prior to the 1830s when schooling was a haphazard event for all but the wealthy.

“We are in this moment at a critical junction. There are states that are reaching a privatization tipping point from which they will not be able to recover. School districts in Indiana are shutting down—Muncie is about to be taken over by Ball State University which will turn all of its schools to charter schools. There are places where the only options that kids have are charter schools and voucher schools—schools that open and close. In Indiana, charters are shut after years of dismal performance only to be resurrected as voucher schools.

“We need to have the moral courage to say this is not OK.

“I am horrified every time I hear a superintendent say—I am not afraid of competition. Just give me a level playing field. If you want competition on a level playing field, join a hockey team.

“Your professional and ethical obligation is to provide the best and most equitable opportunities your community can afford to give kids. Competition for students will inevitably result in decisions not in the best interest of all kids. I have seen that happen time and again.

“You must assume your authority based on your expertise and your experience.

“No, parents do not always know best when it comes to designing a sound education for their children. Your expertise is critical when it comes determining a child’s educational needs. Doctors do not hand over their prescription pads to parents to prescribe what they want. The police do not allow parents to serve alcohol and drugs to their minor children and their friends in their basements. Children are not chattel. It takes a village to raise a child, not an online shopping cart.

“We commonly fund our schools because we all have a stake in doing the best we can to make sure we have physically and emotionally healthy, well-educated citizens. The era of reform is NOW the status quo. The results are in…. Students do no better in charter schools than public schools, they do worse in voucher schools and online schools are a dismal failure by any measure except profit.

“As superintendents, you have a bully pulpit. Speak truth to your community. Speak truth to your legislators. Don’t let Horace down on your watch. Thank you.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Network for Public Education, Privatization, Supporting public schools

Los Angeles: Should a Board Member Stay on the Board When He Been Charged with Commiting Felonies?

By dianeravitch
March 5, 2018 //
23

Sara Roos, blogger in Los Angeles, poses this question. Why should Ref Rodriguez keep his seat on the LAUSD school board when he has been charged with commiting involving financial fraud during his election campaign? But that’s not all. Ref founded a charter school chain, which complained to authorities about Ref’s misuse of its funding.

The Los Angeles Times reported: 

Rodriguez, 46, faces three felony charges for conspiracy, perjury and procuring and offering a false or forged instrument, as well as 25 misdemeanor counts related to the alleged campaign money laundering.

At a preliminary hearing, prosecutors lay out their case before a judge, who must decide whether there is enough evidence for the defendant to stand trial. In court Wednesday, Judge Deborah S. Brazile, drawing on prosecutors’ estimates, said that the hearing in this case could last up to six days,

Unless there is a postponement, Brazile on May 9 will assign the case to a trial judge, who would have two days to begin the hearing.

Prosecutors say Rodriguez carried out a scheme in which friends and relativesdonated more than $24,000 to his campaign, with the understanding that Rodriguez would reimburse them fully. He could have donated the money legally to his own campaign, but Rodriguez allegedly broke the law by concealing the true source of the contributions — denying voters accurate information about support for his campaign, according to the L.A. County district attorney’s office and the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.

His cousin, Elizabeth Tinajero Melendrez, faces related misdemeanor charges. Prosecutors contend that she helped Rodriguez solicit and illegally reimburse the donors. She also has pleaded not guilty.

The case is complicated by separate conflict-of-interest allegations, first reported in the Los Angeles Times, that have to do with Rodriguez’s former role as a senior executive at a local charter school group.

Officials at the charter group, Partnerships to Uplift Communities, recently alleged that in 2014, Rodriguez signed or co-signed $265,000 in checks drawn on PUC accounts that were payable to a separate nonprofit under his control. That same year, they allege, Rodriguez authorized payments of $20,400 to a private company called Better 4 You Fundraising, in which he may have owned a stake at the time.

At a previous court appearance, Deputy Dist. Atty. Susan Ser said her team was examining whether to charge Rodriguez in the alleged conflicts of interest.

If he were a teacher, he would be fired.

If he were a principal, he would be fired.

If he were a superintendent, he would be fired.

But he stays on as a member because the charter school lobby spent millions to buy control of the board, and they can’t risk losing his seat in a new election. His vote may be decisive in choosing a new superintendent for the district.

Does California have ethics laws for public officials? Can they retain their position after indictment? If he is not guilty, he can run again. But it sets a terrible example for students to pretend that an indictment on felony offenses is a trivial matter.

Sara has a petition on her post. Please consider signing it.

 

Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Los Angeles, Privatization

Gary Rubinstein: Where Have the Reform Stars of Yesteryear Gone?

By dianeravitch
March 5, 2018 //
12

 

Gary Rubinstein admits that he misses the big names of reform whose stars have flickered out: Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, Arne Duncan, Cami Anderson, and those others whose words could be picked apart and ridiculed.

Gary says the successors to the golden oldies are not nearly as much fun. He explains by quoting at length from the current leader of Teach for America, whose prose is flat, bland, and blah. She even quotes George W. Bush on the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” How low can you go? Well, maybe some day she will quote Donald J. Trump to inspire the troops.

He writes:

“The disappearance of the reform rock stars and replacement by this new breed of bland understudies was a first step in the collapse of the reform movement. Trump and DeVos surely have not helped Democrats continue to embrace ‘school choice’ as a viable solution. Then, you knew it had to happen eventually, Bill Gates recently came out and admitted that teacher evaluation reform didn’t work as well as he had predicted so he is going to instead work on curriculum development. Whether or not the reform movement is merely ‘playing possum’ right now and playing dead while really planning their next wave of attack (some are giddy about the upcoming Janus Supreme Court case), I suppose we will find out in the years to come.”

 

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Duncan, Arne, Education Industry, Education Reform, Klein, Joel, Privatization, Rhee, Michelle, Teach for America

Johanna Garcia on “The Uncomfortable Truth About Testing,” an NPE Video in English and Spanish

By dianeravitch
March 4, 2018 //
12

 

Johanna Garcia speaks about “The Unconfortable Truth About the Tests.”

The videos were produced by professional videographer Michael Elliott, assisted by Kemala Karmen, on behalf of the Network for Public Education.

Please watch Johanna Garcia and share the videos widely through your social media networks.

 

Johanna Garcia: The Uncomfortable Truth About the Tests

Johanna Garcia: La Incómoda Verdad Sobre Los Exámenes

 

Watch here also: https://networkforpubliceducation.org/2018/03/10290/

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Inequity, Network for Public Education, Testing

Stuart Egan: A Who’s Who of Privatization in North Carolina

By dianeravitch
March 2, 2018 //
5

 

Inspired by Mercedes Schneider’s monumental documentation of the “reform”  movement, A Chronicle of Echoes, Stuart Egan determined to compile a definitive guide to the privatization movement in North Carolina. 

You will find many familiar names, some of them clearly rightwing, others pretending to be “Democrats.”

You will find Michelle Rhee, giving advice to the Tea Party legislature (bet you thought she had disappeared).

You will run into DFER, pretending to be Democrats.

You will encounter TFA, the Broad Foundation, the Gates Foundation, ALEC, the Walton Family Foundation, 50CAN, and many other familiar names.

The national “reform” movement has landed in North Carolina and found their perfect partners: the Tea Party.

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization

John Thompson: Oklahoma City Schools Under Siege by Reformers

By dianeravitch
March 1, 2018 //
6

John Thompson, teacher and historian, writes here about the invasion of the privatizers in Oklahoma City.

 

Every January, the start of National School Choice Week marks the beginning of The Oklahoman editorials in support of charter and private school expansion. Given the $16.5 million grant by Betsy DeVos’ Department of Education to the Walton-funded Oklahoma Public School Resource Center, and the state’s charter school conversion law, which allows the state to override school systems that turn down charter applications, this annual event marks the beginning of an increasingly dangerous school privatization season.
https://schoolchoiceweek.com/states/oklahoma/
http://newsok.com/feds-send-16.5m-to-oklahoma-for-charter-schools/article/5565941
This year’s editorials in favor of school choice expansion indicate an even more worrisome assault on public schools is likely. A former Oklahoma City Public School System (OKCPS) board member wants to break the 46,000 student system into an overwhelmingly black district, a predominantly Hispanic district, and a more affluent no-majority district. The most extreme 2018 proposal was recently made by City Councilman David Greenwell. He wants to convert the OKCPS into a city-sponsored charter district!
http://newsok.com/conversation-underway-about-improving-okc-school-district/article/5584577
The Oklahoman subsequently editorialized that the resignation of the OKCPS superintendent, Aurora Lora, illustrates the “sort of churn” that makes it “nearly impossible” to “move the needle” on school improvement for the 85% low-income district. It didn’t mention that Lora is a graduate of the Broad Residency in Urban Education. Neither does it mention the reasons why educators opposed the micromanaging she was taught by Broad, and how Broad sees the cultivation of churn as a feature, not a flaw, of its corporate governance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/08/20/Local/Graphics/Broadmemos.pdf?tid=a_mcntx
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/broad-foundationsplan-to-expand-influence-in-school-reform/2012/08/20/c118e134-eb0a-11e1-b811-09036bcb182b_blog.html?utm_term=.e00562a71ec5
The editorial called for “truly significant change from the status quo” where “all ideas should at least be considered.” It then buried the lede, “Brent Bushey, head of the Oklahoma Public School Resource Center said his group backs ‘quality options’ for students and that he hopes Greenwell’s comments lead to more talk about more quality options.”
In the disrespected field of education, it isn’t unusual for privatizers, to say that “everything should be on the table.” But, how many Americans would want a Commander in Chief who says he won’t “rule anything in or out” in terms of nuclear confrontations?
Okay, given Donald Trump’s mindset, that’s a touchy metaphor, so let’s use a medical analogy: Would we want a medical system that is free to conduct whatever experiments it wants, or that would institutionalize risky procedures in order to treat certain conditions without a careful study of their unintended consequences? 
The corporate reform Oklahoma Public School Resource Center, and a steady stream of supporters of the so-called “portfolio model” of reform, continue to promote charter expansion. But I’ve yet to hear of a portfolio proponent who would put the inherent dangers of their plan on the table for public discussion. Whether they believe it or not, charter advocates still claim that their schools can serve the “same” kids as neighborhood schools, and that a robust accountability system can somehow prevent the mass exiting of students who make it harder to raise test scores.
I don’t expect true believers in charter portfolios to get into the weeds of school improvement and explain why they could succeed in Oklahoma City with the models that failed in Tennessee, Nevada, and elsewhere, even though our charters would have at least 50% per student less funding than those of other states. Neither do I anticipate an explanation of why Indianapolis’s well-funded “reforms,” that are being marketed for OKC, have produced student performance gains that are the same as the OKCPS “status quo.” But, shouldn’t they acknowledge the downsides of the so-called successes that our business leaders have been hearing promoted in private discussions? Denver is finally admitting that its achievement gap is one of the worst in the nation, and New Orleans and Memphis can’t deny that they are third and first, nationally, in “disconnected youth” or kids out of school, without jobs.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/05/upshot/a-better-way-to-compare-public-schools.html
https://co.chalkbeat.org/posts/co/2015/10/07/report-denver-ranks-last-among-50-cities-on-income-based-achievement-gaps/#.VvHlzhIrK3U
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/04/18/393849058/in-new-orleans-young-lives-adrift
I hope, however, that OKC leaders will ask whether a policy, which is likely to result in thousands of school-aged kids walking the streets during the day, should be “off the table.” I would also hope they would ask why Tulsa’s Deborah Gist, and her team of Broadies, have failed so miserably. Tulsa’s poverty rate is below that of Oklahoma City, and their schools have benefited from huge investments by the Gates Foundation and other national and local edu-philanthropists, but only two urban districts have produced lower test score growth from 3rd to 8th grade. Perhaps we need a conversation about why the test-driven, choice-driven, technocratic model pushed by the Billionaires Boys Club has been such a failure. 
https://www.broadcenter.org/alumni/directory/?fwp_alumni_keyword=tulsa
The cornerstone of accountability-driven, competition-driven corporate reform was once called “earned autonomy.” Now, the basically same concept is pushed with a kinder and gentler spin. The idea is to reward schools that exhibit high test scores with the freedom to offer holistic learning. Regardless of what you call it, the plan is to impose top-down, teach-to-the-test, even scripted instruction, on lower performing schools. The approach is designed to stack the competition between choice and neighborhood schools in favor of charters.
https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/Portfolio_components_2.pdf
I want to stress, however, that I support a public conversation. After I wrote a rebuttal to the former OKCPS board member seeking to break up the system, he and I have had a couple of hours of discussions. He doesn’t want more segregation but he’s tired of the micromanaging. We both want more site based management. After all, most educators and stakeholders who I know are tired of the social engineering imposed by Broadies.
http://newsok.com/former-teacher-lets-not-divide-okc-schools/article/5583744
But the conversation must follow the principle of, “First, Do No Harm.” We must not treat our children like lab rats. All win-win policies should be on the table, but we shouldn’t contemplate discredited theories such as earned autonomy, which actually means earned dignity, that may benefit some while severely damaging other students. For instance, do we really want to repeat the all-charter NOLA experiment if it means that 18% of young people will be out of school and out of the workforce? Should advocates be empowered to deny autonomy to schools they are competing with? Should today’s well-funded market-driven activists be empowered to permanently privatize our future children’s public education system? 
OKCPS board spends hours on process to define goals
Categories Accountability, Broad Foundation, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Oklahoma, Privatization

Tom Ultican: A Dummies’ Guide to the Destroy Public Education Movement

By dianeravitch
February 28, 2018 //
26

 

Retired teacher of physics and math Tom Ultican gathered together a concise summary of the efforts to destroy and privatize public education.

“America’s public education system is being deliberately destroyed. If you graduated from high school in the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s or 80’s, it is such an unthinkable concept that it is difficult to even imagine. Not only is it possible, it is happening and a lot of damage has already occurred.

“Just this morning, I learned that a Republican legislator has proposed privatizing all the schools in Muncie, Indiana. Almost all the schools in New Orleans were privatized after hurricane Katrina. Half the schools in Washington DC and a quarter of the schools in Los Angeles are privatized. However, ninety percent of America’s K-12 students attend public schools. (Note: Charter schools are not public schools, they are schools run by private businesses that have government contracts.)”

The foundational lie of the Destroy Public Education Movement is that our public schools are failing. Add to the lie that unions block reform; that “bad teachers” abound in our schools; that great teachers need only five weeks of training; that money doesn’t matter; that choice solves all problems; that the best Wat to fix schools is to close them.

You know the drill.

Very Stupid.

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization, Testing

North Carolina: NPE Action Endorses Educator Challenging Most Powerful Politician

By dianeravitch
February 26, 2018 //
7

 

Jennifer Mangrum is one courageous woman. She is challenging Phil Berger, the far-right leader of the North Carolina State Senate. Berger has harassed teachers and passed laws to authorize charters, for-profit charters, online charters and vouchers. It is not an overstatement to say that Senator Phil Berger hates public schools and their teachers.

The Network for Public Education Action Fund has endorsed Mangrum. Mangrum has 12 years of experience as a classroom teacher. She is currently a professor of education at the University of North Carolina in Greensboro.

If every public school parent and every graduate of a public school voted for Mangrum, she would oust the worst legislator in the state.

VOTE!!!

VOTE FOR JENNIFER MANGRUM!

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, Networkfor Public Education Action Fund, North Carolina, Privatization

Oklahoma City: Councilman Proposes to Privatize Entire City School District

By dianeravitch
February 26, 2018 //
19

This is how you can spot a corporate education reformer: They don’t like democracy. They don’t like elected school boards. They think the private sector knows best.

In Oklahoma City, a member of the City Council has proposed turning the entire school district-the state’s largest–over to the city, which can then convert it to an all-charter district. The heart of the matter is to eliminate the elected school board and turn the reins of the district over to the business leaders and entrepreneurs. The new mayor-elect is intrigued, because the proposal puts him in the driver’s seat. Yet there is zero evidence that mayoral control solves any pressing problems: See, Chicago.

Have they learned nothing from the big flop of the all-charter Achievement School District in Tennessee and Nevada? Have they swallowed the myth of New Orleans?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Oklahoma, Privatization

Oakland Parent: Leave Our Public Schools Alone!

By dianeravitch
February 24, 2018 //
13

 

The Broad Foundation, elected by no one, has been experimenting on the Oakland, California, public schools for a decade or more. Its goal is to get rid of all democratic governance and privatize all the schools. It has not closed the achievement gap or reached any of its goals.

Oakland public school parent Jane Nylund describes the reform plan in Oakland (whose last Superintendent Antwan Wilson bailed out after adding administrative bloat and became chancellor of the D.C. schools, then resigned in D.C. after trying to transfer his daughter into a coveted school, violating the lottery plan he authored.)

Nylund writes:

“It is with disappointment, but not surprise, to find out that our community is still being used as a mouthpiece via CRPE [Center for Reinventing Public Education] and other reform groups, to come up with a narrative that will make it more palatable to sell school closure to the public. This narrative, which is being communicated to the public via the Blueprint committee, is lockstep with the plans that CRPE and others have put in place to continue the expansion of charter schools in Oakland and elsewhere in the Bay Area. If there was any doubt as to what the grand plan is, you can read all about it in this report. CRPE makes no effort to hide it, but it’s still a major disappointment to once again find that our community is being used as “engagement” pawns in the charter expansion game.

“From Center for Reinventing Public Education:

https://www.crpe.org/publications/slowdown-bay-area-charter-school-growth-causes-solutions

[It says:] “Ultimately, the growth of charters will be fundamentally constrained as long as districts fail to consolidate or close underenrolled district schools. Serious attention needs to go into developing a strategy that requires or incentivizes these actions and provides political backing to district and board officials who are trying to make these adjustments.” [End quote]

“High level: the Bay Area is saturated with charters, there aren’t any more reasonably priced facilities, so what is a charter operator to do? The added complication in Oakland is its “toxic local politics.” Meaning, this community won’t go down the primrose path willingly, so the district has to sugarcoat it. A lot.

“Step 1-Come up with a survey that isn’t really a survey. It’s a way to steer respondents into answering questions that favor school closure/consolidation

“I read it and was amazed by the complete lack of any sort of objectivity. This “survey” needs to be called out for what it is-a method to “engage” an unsuspecting public for buy-in to justify more disruption in the district to close/consolidate schools. It is not a real survey; it’s full of biased, leading questions-who wouldn’t want safe, supported schools? But then, once the data is collected and put out in the media, the district uses that completely biased information to justify their decisions. “Well, it’s not our fault we closed your school and opened a charter in its place-it’s what you said you wanted on the survey”. If the district’s plan is to disrupt the district even more than they have in the past, then they need to own that decision and stop using the public this way. It’s unconscionable, but it seems that is the usual method.

“Slide 8 is my favorite. Respondents were asked several questions about changing school sizes/consolidation; the questions didn’t get much support. But, just to make sure that the district could turn those non-supporters into supporters, they added a survey choice “Potentially support based on the outcomes of local engagement”. To the respondent, that’s a definite maybe-or-maybe-not response, but the district captures the “potential support” as actual support, combines the two positive numbers together, and lo and behold, now everyone supports school closure/consolidation, even the non-supporters. It’s all good! And these numbers will be repeated over, and over, and over….

“Slide 16 is another good one. It concerns sizes of elementary schools. There is this random quote on the slide that has nothing to do with the data presented on the slide:

“OUSD does not perform better than the identified peers with minority students using 2017 CA School Dashboard data”

“Meaning what? The subliminal message is that OUSD doesn’t do a good job having these smaller elementary schools/classes (shown on the slide), so we don’t need them. Terrible example of overreach and causation which doesn’t exist. Don’t fall for it.

“Step 2-Use a Broad-trained employee to create an enrollment model

“I know, right? This isn’t going to end well.

“Step 3-Use data to generate a list of “peer” districts that will determine some kind of random school size target, with no thought as to whether those sizes are what works for Oakland

“Generate a benchmark? This one is so far out there in terms of random data crunching that I don’t know where to begin. For starters, the peer list did not include West Contra Costa, a local district that is nearly a perfect match to our own. The fact that West Contra Costa didn’t make the list makes me question the criteria was used to generate it. Again, keep you eyes on the target and your seat backs and tray tables in the full and upright position. So someone pulls together a peer list of schools (LA Unified? With 400,000+ students? Not our peer) and comes up with some sort of average school size that OUSD should meet. Why? If logic dictates, then it goes without saying that these peer districts must be full service districts with wraparound services. Remember, that’s what’s being sold to the community. Reach the size of the peer district, and that’s what you will have.

“Wrong. In small type, the author does concur that “The above is based only on peer benchmarking; peers may or may not have quality community schools.”

“Again, go back to the quote at the beginning of the message. Does CRPE say anything about full service community schools? No, of course not. It’s about charter expansion and getting tasty real estate by the Lake. It’s always been about that.

“Turn this entire exercise on its head. Maybe those peer districts want to have full services. Maybe they want smaller class sizes like we have in Oakland. But due to all kinds of constraints, like funding, they can’t have these things. So why would OUSD want to match these peer districts? LA Unified and San Diego Unified are both going broke. Oh, right, so is OUSD.

“Step 4-Use inappropriate districts in your peer list to make it look like Oakland doesn’t perform as well as its “peers”, and therefore it’s okay to have larger class sizes, just like their “peers”

“Don’t use districts like SF Unified as a peer. They might be our neighbor, but their FRPL is around 56%. OUSD is about 74%. Not the same. But adding wealthier districts to the peer list creates the narrative that Oakland doesn’t perform as well as their peers (with the bigger schools/class sizes). Wealth generates higher test scores.

“An analogy would be, “Well, we give all of our Oakland kids breakfast but only half the kids in a wealthier district get breakfast. Our kids don’t seem to be performing better than those other kids, so therefore we should take our kids’ breakfast away.” Seriously.

“Step 5-Come up with a breakeven enrollment model that uses teachers’ salaries as variable costs. Huh?

“I’m not an accountant, but I do have an MBA. I was taught that generally salaries are considered fixed costs, at least in the short run. Teachers don’t get paid by the hour, or by how any widgets they make. They get paid the same whether they teach ten kids or thirty. Variable costs are things like books and food. So what’s up with using a model that treats teachers like books or food?

“Well, turns out there is a model for that very concept. It comes from the Friedman Foundation, another ed reform group which espouses Milton Friedman’s dream of sending kids to private schools through vouchers. In order to justify the cost of using a voucher (and thus taking that money away from public schools), the group has espoused the idea that teachers themselves are, in fact, a short term variable cost of doing business, and not fixed. Like supplies or pizza workers. In other words, Friedman’s model assumes that we have a ready supply of teachers of all sorts, experienced, certified, that we can tap into and hire and lay off at will at any time. It also assumes that all that hiring/firing in no way will cause any kind of disruption and impact to learning. Oh, and it won’t increase class size, either. Maybe in some other parallel universe. So by treating teachers as variable costs, the Friedman group can now advocate for a larger dollar amount of the voucher by claiming that the voucher covers only the variable cost portion of educating the child. Which according to them, includes books, food, and teachers. If they left the teacher portion out of that voucher, it would be a lot smaller.

“If teachers’ salaries were treated as variable costs in the breakeven calculation, I have to question the entire validity of the model. Maybe the answer would be the same, but it’s difficult for me to accept cost assumptions pattered after a reform group that wants to take my tax dollars (and yours) and give it to a student to attend a school that teaches that man and dinosaurs lived together. That’s just not cool with me.

“Step 6-deal with community pushback by dangling a carrot, that really turns out to be a stick
What to do when you need to convince the community that a bad idea is really a good idea? Easy. Use their emotional buy-in to support full-service community schools. And then, gently explain to them that in order to provide these services, we must close schools. That’s exactly what the survey did. Then, as if by magic, millions of dollars will appear that the district will use thoughtfully and responsibly to fund these programs. That is the predetermined outcome that the survey was after, and that’s what they got. Sounds great, right?

“Right, only it’s magical thinking. See CRPE quote at the beginning of this email if you’re not convinced. Closing schools does one thing: allows another charter to move into the building (gotta have more!). The last 19 school closures resulted in 15 charters opening. OUSD enrollment drops (think charter expansion), millions of dollars leave the district, and all those purported savings go up in smoke. No money for programs. Not going to happen. But, CRPE gets what it wants, as do the local charter operators, who by their own admission, desperately want to expand. Because we don’t have enough schools as it is. Or do we? Hey, it’s the free market at its finest. What could possibly go wrong?”

 

Categories Accountability, Broad Foundation, California, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »