Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

Jelmer Evers, Dutch scholar and teacher, draws together the seemingly disparate strands that connect the rise of neo-fascist movements, attacks on democracy, growing inequality, and the oligarchs’ determination to privatize public schools.

View at Medium.com

He writes:

“Rent-seeking and privatization are not just confined to the prison system. Almost every aspect of society has been opened up for markets and investors. In ‘The Privatization of Education: a Political Economy of Global Economy Reform’ (full text) Antoni Verger et all show that this is a global phenomenon in many guises, and that everywhere “individual and positional goals start to overshadow social and collective goals” These policies spread throughout very deliberate informal policy networks and more formal international frameworks.

“A telling example are the PISA tests. In the excellent ‘The Global Education Race: taking the measure of PISA and international testing’ Sam Sellar, Greg Thompson and David Rutkowski delve into the complex world of international testing. Many questions should be asked about what is actually being tested and what kind of conclusion can acutally be drawn from the data. They make clear that it these tests are not just about the tests, but just as much about the stories being created around them. And with the advent of ‘Big Data’ this is something we have to deal with. As they state: “the future of public education will depend on the creation of publics who understand enough about these technologies to debate their benefits, dangers and impacts on the collective project of teaching the next generation”.

“We must take that one step further and call for ‘publics’- and certainly professions- who understand the philosophies, histories, political economy and sociology around public discourses and for teachers around public education specifically. That is also the case in what I would deem the most important book about education that I’ve read the last year, Dennis Shirley’s ‘New Imperatives of Educational Change: achievement with integrity’. We should aspire to do the best for our children, but we also should do what is right and virtuous. And privatization, top-down accountability, casualization of the teaching profession, an infantile narrow look on ‘what works’ damage our children, our schools, our profession, and most importantly they do untold damage to our society and our democracy. As Yong Zhao states in a very good- and hopefully influential- article ‘What works might hurt: side-effects in education’ you have to look at side-effects and opportunity costs.

“And the opportunity costs of privatization and marketization of education are huge, and have big repercussions beyond education itself. If you are serious about education as a force for equity you have to take into account what your parties’ policies are doing to society and its children. You have to take into account that policies that undermining public education as a public institution- governed for and by the people- will damage everything that you stand for. So if you see a call for further flexibility, shortening, practice of teacher education, and call it ‘training’ be wary. Yes, teaching is a practice, but it is also a profession informed by science, philosophy and reflection.

“Sadly there are many forces undermining public education. From Silicon Valley, venture capitalists to right-wing politicians, sometimes under different heading: free-markets, pro-choice, efficiency or religious freedom. But it was the ‘New Left’- Democrats, New Labour, European social democrats- who have started us on this road. One could say they’ve softened up public education for the state that it is in in many countries around the world. This is now being exploited by right-wing governments, corporations and the 1%. It’s ironic that parties that were originally founded in the interest of labour have been the vehicles in it’s destruction.

“But this didn’t happen overnight and by itself. There have been deliberate and long running attempts to capture the state by moneyed interests, rent-seeking. In her book ‘Dark Money: the hiden history of billionaires’ Jane Mayer uncovers the strategies and overlapping policy networks, think tanks, “charities” of the Koch Brothers to revamp the United States into their right-wing image, through organisations like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), ALEC, the Heritage Foundation, and numerous super-PACs. This has only accelerated after the ‘Citizens United’ ruling, which gave corporations and rich individuals unprecedented possibilities to buy influence in the political process. The capture of the state, the rent-seeking that van Bavel, Rodrik and Scheidel warn us about, has turned America increasingly into an oligarchy. As the final quote of Charles Koch in the book painfully illustrates: “I just want my fair share — which is all of it.” This is why North-Carolina is not a democracy anymore. Institutions are failing and the oligarchs are winning. And it isn’t restricted to the other side of the Atlantic.”

With the appointment of Betsy DeVos, he writes, the oligarchs have captured control of the federal government.

My view: Our present dire situation is far from terminal. Resistance is growing. Betsy has stripped the veneer from the so-called reform movement. She is all-in for privatization. There is nothing liberal, progressive, or even modern about her worldview.

It is only a matter of time until the marauders and oligarchs get their comeuppance.

View at Medium.com

View at Medium.com

 

WListen to Tim Slekar’s “Busted Pencils” podcast:

 

New #BustEDPencils Episode 47: An Astrophysical Dismantling of Education Reform: Photon Torpedoes Launched!

http://bustedpencils.com/episode/episode-47-astrophysical-dismantling-education-reform-photon-torpedoes-launched/

I was hoping to post this along with the video of the speech I gave to the California School Boards Association, but I am still waiting for the video.

 

Below is the speech I wrote. When I delivered it, I added a few lines at the beginning and the end, and elaborated in various places. But this is about 95% of what I said.

 

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION

December 1, 2017

Prepare to take notes because I am going to give you some reading assignments.

Public schools in California and throughout the nation are in an existential crisis. The accountability system is broken. Privatization, promoted by billionaires and the Trump administration, threatens to undermine public education. Trump and Betsy DeVos want to reallocate $20 Billion of federal funds for charters and vouchers. The privatizers want to eliminate school boards; they want schools to be run by corporations, whether nonprofit or for profit. The teaching profession is in deep trouble, after years of scapegoating, and the numbers entering teaching have plummeted.

The media portrays public schools as “failing,” despite the fact that test scores and graduation rates for every group, including black and Hispanic students, are at historic highs, and dropout rates are at historic lows.

Let me say from the outset that I believe that public schools, open to all, paid for by taxes, governed by democratically chosen boards, are an essential part of our democracy. Whatever threatens public schools threatens democracy. Public schools are a public good, for which we all pay, not a consumer choice.

For the past three decades, we have heard a steady drumbeat of propaganda targeting public schools and teachers. The propagandists make the false claim that our public schools are failing.  They are not. It started in 1983, with a federal report called “A Nation at Risk.” That report said that our nation was falling behind the rest of the world because of our terrible schools, that our scores on international tests were embarrassingly low, that other nations were stealing our industries, and that we were in danger of losing our very identity as a nation. That report was written during a recession in 1982. No one thanked the public schools when the economy started booming again.

Thirty four years later, the United States leads the world in technology, economic power, cultural innovation, democratic institutions, and military might. How could we be so successful as a nation if our schools are as terrible as the critics say?

We know from Gallup polls that the public has a low opinion of public education. Why? That’s what they have heard from the national media for years. But when the same poll asks parents about their own local school, the one their own child attends, they say their own school is wonderful, the teachers are terrific, and they rate the school they know very highly.

What I will do today is try to clear the record.

To put it bluntly, American public education has been the target of a long-running propaganda campaign to paint it as failing and obsolete. This is not true.

School reform was once thoughtful and meaningful. Over the past two centuries, we have had a long history of school reformers. Most were educators who wanted to make public schools better. They wanted more funding or better trained teachers or better curriculum or better tests or desegregation. But today, the people who call themselves “reformers” don’t want to reform the public schools. They don’t want to make them better. Most of these reformers have never been educators, most have never actually set foot in a public school, but are nevertheless certain that they know how to redesign public education for millions of children. They want to privatize public schools, monetize them, and hand them over to private management. When equity investors hold annual conferences to explain how to make a profit off the public education industry, something fundamental has changed. The equity investors talk about public schools not as a democratic community institution, but as a commodity and an investment opportunity. Children are seen as products, not as unique individuals.

What is happening today is unprecedented in our history. Until a decade ago, schools were never closed because of low test scores. Low test scores send out a distress signal, a call for help and support and action by those who are in charge. Now it is a signal to fire the staff, close the school, and hand it over to private management.
But that is not what happens in the rest of the world.

This is what we know about the highest performing nations in the world:

They have strong and equitable school systems; they spend more money on poor kids than on rich kids. They have no charters, no vouchers; public education is a public responsibility. They have a respected education profession; no amateurs are allowed as teachers, principals, or superintendents. There is no Teach for Finland.

We know what makes good schools: Caring and involved families; experienced, dedicated teachers and administrators; a responsible school board; a curriculum that includes not only the basic skills but the arts, foreign languages, history, civics, foreign languages, and physical education; reasonable class sizes; and a community united to support its local public schools. We know what matters most to parents: they want their children to be healthy, safe, and happy. They want them to be well-educated; they want them to have good character and ethical behavior. They want them to have the skills and knowledge to prepare for life.

What is the purpose of public schools? From the beginning of their history—until recently–their purpose was to develop good citizens, to nurture good character, to prepare young men and women to sustain our democratic experiment into the future. Young adults who could read and inform themselves about issues, who could vote wisely for their leaders, who could lead independent lives, who could contribute to their communities, and who were able to serve on juries. These are the duties of citizens. This was the original purpose of public schools: citizenship.

Yet we have federal and state policies that focus on one thing and one thing only: test scores. Test scores have become the be-all and end-all, everywhere in the United States, thanks to No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and now, the Every Student Succeeds Act. Policymakers in Washington don’t stop to ask themselves why they want children to be tested every year from grades 3 to 8. No other nation does it.

Since 2002, when No Child Left Behind was signed into law, the federal government has been mindlessly engaged in a massive experiment on the nation’s public schools, trying to micromanage them by legislation written in Washington, D.C.

NCLB was George W. Bush’s signature legislation. He said that if we tested every child every year and published the results, wonderful things would happen. That’s what they did in Texas, he said, and they saw dramatic improvements. High school graduation rates went up; achievement gaps closed; and test scores soared. It was called “the Texas miracle.”

But there was no Texas miracle. NCLB did not perform any miracles. Instead, it set a totally unreasonable target: every student in every school was supposed to be proficient in reading and math by 2014, or their school would suffer the consequences. No school reached that target. It was a ridiculous target. Threats and sanctions and bonuses do not improve education. By 2011, eight years after the law went into effect, nearly half the schools in the nation were classified as failing. If the Obama administration had not introduced waivers from NCLB’s unreasonable target, eventually every school in the nation would be a failing school. NCLB was the Death Star of American education.

Then in 2009 came the Obama administration’s Race to the Top, which replicated NCLB instead of replacing it. Race to the Top was NCLB 2.0.

After the financial collapse of fall 2008, Congress gave Secretary Arne Duncan $5 billion in discretionary funds with which to pursue education reform. He used it to double down on the failed testing strategies of NCLB. He used the money to create a competition for the states. To be eligible, states had to agree to evaluate teachers based on their students’ test scores; they had to agree to increase the number of privately managed charter schools; they had to agree to adopt common “college and career ready” standards, which of course were the Common Core standards; they had to agree to take drastic steps to restructure or close schools with low test scores.

Because of NCLB and Race to the Top, many hundreds, perhaps thousands of public schools were closed. Many teachers and principals were fired. Many communities were disrupted, all in pursuit of the ever higher, elusive standardized test scores. Thousands of charter schools opened to take the place of public schools, and many of the charter schools closed, because of academic or financial problems. Some got start-up funding and never even opened. They are called “ghost schools.”

American education has gone through nearly two decades of disruption, upheaval, and turmoil.

Was it worth it?

Absolutely not.

Thanks to Congress, the tests became the purpose of schooling. I have a secret wish. I would like to see every member of Congress and every state legislator take the 8th grade math test and publish their scores. I am willing to bet that their passing rate would be far below that of the 8th graders.

NCLB and RTTT caused teaching to the test; cheating; demoralized teachers; school closures; narrowing of the curriculum; cuts to the arts and physical education; and transfer of public money to private management. The beneficiaries were not children but a new industry of consultants and entrepreneurs. Thanks to RTTT, almost every state adopted the Common Core standards even though they were never field tested anywhere. Most states endorsed the Common Core before the ink was dry. No one knew if they would increase achievement gaps or narrow them. The tests created for the Common Core set passing marks so absurdly high that most students did not pass the tests. And why are we racing to the top? School is not a basketball game or a foot race. The promise of American public education is equality of educational opportunity, not a market-based system where a few win, and everyone else loses.

Race to the Top compelled states to judge teachers by student test scores. This method rewarded those who taught in affluent districts and punished those who taught the neediest students. The American Statistical Association warned in 2014 that this was a seriously flawed method and should not be used to evaluate teacher quality. It did not identify the best or the worst teachers. The main effect of this method was to shame and demoralize teachers. When the Los Angeles Times created and published its own ratings of teachers in LAUSD, a fifth-grade teacher who was publicly shamed and rated mediocre, committed suicide. His name was Rigoberto Ruelas. I will not forget him.

Many states, including California, now have serious teacher shortages. According to the Learning Policy Institute at Stanford, ¾ of the districts in CA are reporting teacher shortages, and the situation is getting worse. The shortages are largest in districts serving the neediest children, and worst in special education, mathematics, and science. Teachers are leaving, and the supply of new teachers has shrunk. When NCLB was signed in 2002, there were 77,000 people preparing to be teachers in California. By 2014, that number had fallen to only 19,000. You can have an education system staffed by teachers with substandard or emergency credentials, but it won’t be what is best for students.

Daniel Koretz of Harvard University, one of the nation’s most eminent testing experts, recently published a book called “The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better.” He says that NCLB failed. Rising test scores became meaningless because test prep inflated test scores without improving education.
You can never close the achievement gap with standardized tests. Standardized tests are normed on a bell curve. Bell curves have a top half and a bottom half. The kids from affluent homes cluster in the top half; the kids from poverty, the kids with disabilities, the kids whose native language is not English, dominate the bottom half. The bell curve never closes. The bell curve and standardized testing are designed to favor the haves and punish the have-nots.

And let me explain why California is having so much trouble establishing a decent accountability system. The passing mark on standardized tests is completely arbitrary. It not objective; it is not scientific. You can set the passing mark so that everyone passes; you can set it so that everyone fails. You can set it so that any percentage you want succeeds of fails. There is no science here. It is human judgment, nothing more.

As long as you rely on standardized tests, there will be achievement gaps. It is baked into the scoring of the tests.
Common Core tests are given in the spring. The results are returned in the summer or fall, when the students no longer have the same teacher. The teachers are not allowed to see what students got right or wrong. The tests have no diagnostic value. None whatever.

From an education point of view, the tests should be offered in September, and the results returned within days or weeks, so that teachers could learn what students know and don’t know. Unless the tests have diagnostic value, they have no value. Would you go to a doctor who gave you tests and reported the results three months later, but didn’t tell you anything about your condition? All she could say was how you rank in comparison to other patients who took the same tests. It is as if she said you are doing better or worse  than 75% of people your age but I’m not prescribing anything for what ails you. Pointless!

Now, you know I am adamantly opposed to privatization. California is overrun with privatized schools. California has more charter schools and students in privately managed charter schools than any other state in the nation.
It is not because these schools are better than public schools, but because they have the most powerful, best funded lobby in the state. Any legislator who defies the California Charter Schools Association endangers his or her future.

Last spring, a California-based organization called “In the Public Interest” released a report titled Spending Blind, about the state’s lavish spending on charter facilities. It said that the state has spent $2.5 billion on charter school buildings in the past 15 years. Three-quarters of the state’s charter schools perform worse than nearby public schools with similar demographics. Many were built in districts that didn’t need them, many engage in discriminatory practices. More money for charters means less money for traditional public schools. Every dollar that goes to a charter school is a dollar taken away from public schools. Can California afford two separate school systems, one that welcomes all students, and another system that chooses its students and doesn’t get better results?

No matter what they call themselves, charter schools are not public schools. Two federal appeals courts have ruled that charter schools are not “state actors.” They are contractors. Public schools are state actors. The National Labor Relations Boardsaid that charter schools are not public schools and therefore exempt from state labor laws that cover public schools. The charter lobby sought those rulings. They are public when it’s time to get public money but not-public when it comes to state laws. That’s what they want.

California has students enrolled in online charter schools, which are a complete sham. The biggest of them, CAVA, hides behind non-profit fronts, but it is run by a for-profit corporation. It collects millions in profits from taxpayers and produces abysmal results. CAVA is part of the K12 Inc. chain, which is listed as on the New York Stock Exchange. It was founded by junk bond king Michael Milken. Its executives are paid millions. It has terrible test scores, terrible graduation rates. Why is this permitted? Governor Brown vetoed legislation to ban for-profit charter schools.

California has storefront charters, many of which require that students show up only once every 20 days to meet a teacher. Students are given paper packets of work to take home and complete. Some of these storefront charters have a graduation rate under 10%. Some even have a graduation rate of 0%. Students as early as 7th grade can enroll in these storefront “learning centers.” What a waste of learning time!

The leader of two charter schools in Livermore misappropriated millions of dollars.

The leader of the American Indian Charter Schools in Oakland replaced almost every Native American student with Asian-American students, and transferred nearly $4 million to his personal bank accounts. He is currently under federal indictment for mail fraud and money laundering.

California has 10 charter schools owned and managed by a mysterious Turkish imam who lives in the Poconos in Pennsylvania and is currently embroiled in a bitter political dispute with the Turkish government. Most of its board members and teachers are Turkish, brought here on visas. Are they qualified to teach the fundamentals of citizenship to American students?

The leader of the charter school called “The Wisdom Academy for Young Scientists” bought a building, leased it to her charter for $19,000 a month, paid herself a salary of $223,000 a year, and skimmed millions of dollars from taxpayers. She required a teacher to fly to Nigeria to marry her brother so he could acquire American citizenship; the teacher refused and was fired; she received a settlement of half a million dollars for wrongful termination. The founder paid the state $16,000, and the school was closed in 2016, a rare instance of a wee bit of accountability. Just last May, the founder and her son were indicted for embezzlement and money laundering. The California Charter Schools Association backed up the founder in each of her appeals. Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.

The founders of Ivy Academia charter schools in the San Fernando Valley were convicted of embezzlement in 2013. The California Charter Schools Association supported them on the grounds that charter schools are not “state actors” and are not subject to the same laws as real public schools.

The founder of the Celerity Group charter chain of seven schools in Southern California receives a salary of nearly half a million dollars a year. She buys designer clothes, enjoys dining at fine restaurants, hires limousines, all on the schools’ credit card. One meal at the Arroyo Chop House in Pasadena cost nearly $1,000, charged to the charter schools’ credit card. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security raided Celerity’s offices. Do taxpayers know that they are underwriting her elegant lifestyle?

California allows small rural districts to authorize charters in districts far away from them. The small districts get a handsome management fee, and no one supervises the storefront charters that they authorize. The so-called “satellite charter industry” enrolls 150,000 students in so-called independent study centers. Nearly 20% of the state’s charters operate as satellites, producing millions in revenue for private operators. These are sham schools with rock-bottom graduation rates. Do taxpayers want to squander their money on profit-making activities that benefit the sponsors and the industry, but not the students?

Want to read about it? Google “Charters and Consequences” by Carol Burris, CEO of the Network for Public Education.

The superintendent of a small rural district, Mountain Empire Unified School District, pled guilty to felony conflict of interest after creating more than a dozen charters in other districts, then signing contracts with those charters for his private consulting business. The superintendent received a kickback for every charter he created in another district without their knowledge, his little district collected up to $500,000 a year from the charters, and he personally collected five percent of the revenue from each of the charters. Some of those charters then paid his consulting firm as much as $100,000 for back-office services.

Friends, this is public money, collected from taxpayers. Is this right? Something is wrong with state law in California.

San Diego County has 120 charter schools. 20% of the students in the county are in charter schools. Over one-third of the county’s charters are “independent learning centers,” which means the student rarely if ever meets a teacher or another student. At a school called Charter High School, only 1/3 of the students graduated. At the Diego Valley charter, only 11% of the cohort graduated. In Los Angeles, one-quarter of the students in the nation’s second largest district attend charters. No new money is appropriated for charters. The charters cost LAUSD half a billion dollars in lost revenue over the past decade. How can the district, which is responsible for the majority of students, improve its offerings, reduce its class sizes, and pay teachers more when it is constantly losing revenue to charters?

As you know, charters may be approved by the local school district. If they are turned down, they can appeal to the county board of education. If they are turned down, they can appeal to the state board. How many of your districts have charter schools that your board did not approve, want, or need? If you say, “None,” I say, “Wait. They are on their way.”

The legislature has regularly passed laws for charter accountability, laws to require charter boards to hold public meetings, but the California Charter School Association has vigorously lobbied to block any accountability. Governor Brown has vetoed legislation that would increase accountability for charters. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos must love California, the blue state that gives her almost everything she wants.

Reed Hastings, the founder of Netflix, was a member of the California State Board of Education. He is also a generous donor to the California Charter Schools Association. He gave millions to the campaign to give charter advocates control of the Los Angeles school board. He has said publicly that school boards are obsolete. He believes that schools should be run by large corporations.

I disagree. I think democracy is superior to the corporate model. I think that the public has a right to choose its leaders. I think that public education should be democratically controlled, not for the benefit of corporations, but for the benefit of students and society. I think you, the elected board, know your community and your students far better than any faceless corporation.

Earlier this year, the NAACP issued a blistering critique of the charter industry. It called for a moratorium on new charters until new laws are in place for accountability. The NAACP offered these recommendations:

First, There should be more equitable and adequate funding for schools serving children of color. The current school finance system is extremely unfair and inequitable.

Second, more money should go to schools where the needs are greatest. Invest in low-performing schools so that students have fully qualified educators, early childhood education, health and mental services, extended learning time, and social supports.

Third, only local school districts should be allowed to authorize charters, based on their needs.

Fourth, eliminate for-profit charter schools and for-profit charter management companies that control nonprofit charters. Not a single dollar of federal, state or local money should go to for-profit charters or for-profit managers.

​Do not expect charters to reduce the achievement gaps between children who are rich and poor, between children from different racial and ethnic groups. Betsy DeVos’ home state of Michigan is overrun with charter schools, both for profit and nonprofit. DeVos has used her fortune to block any accountability for charters. In that sense, California and Michigan are similar. Lots of charters, no accountability. In 2003, Michigan was right in the middle of the 50 states on national tests. By 2013, Michigan had fallen to the bottom in reading and mathematics. All that choice, and no results. Like California, Michigan has been overrun with charter school scandals, frauds, and embezzlement.

You serve as school board members because you want to help schools. You want them to be better than they are now. They won’t get better if they have less money.

Here are my suggestions:

Children start life with different advantages and disadvantages. Leveling the playing field is an obligation of society. Schools can help but they can’t do it alone. There is an achievement gap on the first day of school. It starts in the home, where children are exposed to different opportunities and vocabulary and learning experiences.

Here are numbers that really make a difference. Pre-natal care: UN-March of Dimes: 131/184, tied with Somalia
High-quality Early childhood education: The Economist: 34 out of 45. These are the causes of low scores.

Of the 30 richest nations, the US ranks 29th in income equality and wealth equality. We are #1 in child poverty. Hal the children in public schools qualify for free or reduced price lunches. They are poor.

Reduce class sizes, especially in the early grades, especially for children who are having learning problems. Children who are falling behind need small classes, even individual tutors.

Every school should have a full and rich curriculum, including the arts and physical education, history and literature, science and mathematics and foreign languages.

Medical care for children whose parents can’t afford it. Health clinic, school nurse.

Wraparound services: parent education, school psychologist, social workers, librarians; after-school programs, summer programs (summer learning loss).

Charters should be authorized only by local school districts, to meet their needs. If alternative schools are needed, they should be part of the district. They should serve children who are not making it in public schools; students who are dropouts; those who have tuned out and need extra motivation. Charters should be for the weakest students, not the strongest. They should boast of how many children they have saved, not about their test scores. And know that charters are the gateway drug to school choice; there are already calls for vouchers in California, which would further deplete the coffers of public schools.

Do whatever you can to reduce racial segregation.

Strengthen the profession: teachers should have at least a full year of professional education and practice teaching; principals should be master teachers, who can help their teachers; superintendents should be experienced educators who understand teaching and learning.

Support teachers, so they don’t leave. Give them mentors and opportunities for professional growth.

Use tests diagnostically, not as carrots or sticks. Standardized tests should be used sparingly, preferably on a sampling basis. Most tests should be written by teachers, who know what they taught.

Teachers should be evaluated based on their performance in the classroom, by their peers and their supervisors, not by test scores.

Schools that are struggling should get timely help, not closing. Maybe they need smaller classes for children who can’t read; maybe they need extra social workers; maybe they need more bilingual instructors.

The purpose of education is not to race to higher test scores, but to prepare children for the duties and responsibilities of citizenship. What matters most is that students learn to think about the consequences of their actions, learn to treat others with respect, learn how to live and work in a world of rapid change, and gain the knowledge and skills they need to function in the world. What matters most cannot be assessed by a standardized test.

Public education is a public trust.

Protecting our public schools against privatization and saving them for future generations of American children is the civil rights issue of our time.

Use your efforts, your influence, your responsibility to strengthen and improve public schools. Fight for laws to curb the misuse of public money. Fight for laws to prohibit profiting from children and public schools. Elect public officials who will support public schools and oppose privatization. Do not support candidates who do not support our public schools, doors open to all, accountable and transparent.

Stand up for your community, your students, your teachers, and our democracy.

 

Tom Ultican blames Democrats for the destruction of public schools in Indianapolis, led by the well-funded Mind Trust. 

What he describes is the Democratic party’s betrayal of public education and democracy. It is a shameful legacy, and it is not about the past. It is happening right now.

He writes:

”The Mind Trust is the proto-type urban school privatizing design. Working locally, it uses a combination of national money and local money to control teacher professional development, create political hegemony and accelerate charter school growth. The destroy public education (DPE) movement has identified The Mind Trust as a model for the nation.

“A Little History

“In 1999, Bart Peterson became the first Democrat to win the Indianapolis mayor’s race since 1967. Peterson campaigned on the promise to bring charter schools to Indianapolis. He claimed, “We are simply in an age where cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all, 1950s style education just doesn’t work for a lot of kids. The evidence is the dropout rate. The evidence is the number of at-risk kids who are failing at school.”

“The new mayor joined with Republican state senator Teresa Lubbers to finally achieve her almost decade long effort of passing a charter school law in Indiana. In the new charter school law, Lubbers provided for the mayor of Indianapolis to be a charter school authorizer. Then Democratic governor, Frank O’Bannon, signed the legislation into law.

“During his first run for office, Peterson invited David Harris a 27-year old lawyer with no education background to be his education guy. Harris became the director of the mayor’s new charter school office. By the 2006-2007, the Peterson administration had authorized 16 charter schools.”

He then goes on to quote conservatives who are thrilled to see that Democrats have embraced their privatization agenda.

Tultican lists the board of directors of the Mind Trust. Notably, none are educators.

“It is noteworthy that no school teachers or parent organization leaders are on this board which is dominated by corporate leaders and politicians. It is possible that one of the four school organization chief administrators taught at one time during their career but no one with recent classroom experience is represented.”

Mind Trust leader David Harris became a rising star in the privatization movement. Tultican helpfully lists his peers, all prominent in the “Destroy Public Education Movement.”

And then there are the funders! Gates, Walton, the usual suspects, the crowd that is contemptuous of public schools.

“December 2016 the not so Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) published a lengthy piece lauding privatization and choice in public schools. They held Indianapolis up as being a leader in developing 21st century schools and The Mind Trust as the catalyst. The paper stated:

A key reason is The Mind Trust, founded in 2006 by Mayor Peterson and David Harris as a kind of venture capital outfit for the charter sector, to raise money and recruit talent. The Mind Trust convinced Teach For America (TFA), The New Teacher Project (now TNTP), and Stand for Children to come to Indianapolis, in part by raising money for them. Since then TFA has brought in more than 500 teachers and 39 school leaders (the latter through its Indianapolis Principal Fellowship); TNTP’s Indianapolis Teaching Fellows Program has trained 498 teachers; and Stand for Children has worked to engage the community, to educate parents about school reform, and to spearhead fundraising for school board candidates. The Mind Trust has also raised millions of dollars and offered start-up space, grants, and other help to eight nonprofit organizations and 17 new schools, with more to come.

“The PPI claims that bringing in 500 teachers who commit for just two years and have only five weeks of teacher training improves education. This is supposedly better than bringing in experienced teachers or newly minted teachers who are committed to a career in education and have between one and two years of teacher training at a university.

“They are also saying that having Stand for Children invade Indianapolis with their dark money and undermining local democratic processes is desirable.

“Instead of raising millions of dollars to improve public schools, The Mind Trust is using that money in a way that undermines the education of two-thirds of the students in Indianapolis who attend those public schools.”

This is as good an analysis of the privatization movement as you will read. And an ansolutely devastating critique of the role of the Democratic Party in promoting this anti-democratic attack on public education.

The Mind Trust has taken the lead role in destroying public education in Indianapolis. It is a shameful legacy.

 

 

 

 

 

Thomas A. Cox practiced law in Georgia for many years and taught Education Policy and the Law at Emory University. Recently he moved to Virginia and discovered that the state’s leading newspaper, the Richmond Times Dispatch, was habitually hostile to the principle of public education and cheerleading for privatization. Cox submitted this opinion article to set the record straight, which the newspaper published.

I hope the editorial writers read his article.

He wrote about the falsity of the “failing schools narrative” and demonstrated that it is just plain wrong.

“Not often heard over the noise of this failure narrative is some compelling evidence that America’s public schools, far from being awash in failure, have overall been performing remarkably well, particularly in the face of new challenges and changing demographics. This counter-narrative is shared by a number of education researchers, historians, and educators, although they seldom receive the same fanfare (or financial impetus) as the nay-saying privatization advocates.”

Privatization is no answer to the challenges faced by our students today.

“A blind reliance on profit-driven markets to address and solve the challenges in educating America’s children would constitute a non-evidence-based leap of faith. Even worse, it would drive us toward abandoning our long-shared concept of education as a “common good” that we as a democratic polity have a collective responsibility to provide to all children. For almost two centuries, our country has served as a model to the world by striving to achieve that ideal through a shared societal commitment to publicly funded and locally operated schools.

“Although far from perfect and in need of constant re-evaluation and improvement, public schools and their legions of dedicated teachers continue to serve as critically important institutional forces in our nation’s ongoing struggle to provide equal opportunities for all citizens. In an age when so many economic and societal forces serve instead to increase inequality, now is no time for us to abandon that common commitment.”

 

 

The rightwing, anti-union Walton Family Foundation has funded a group called Innovate to push charter schools as the solution to achievement gaps in San Francisco.

Innovate targets Black and Latino families and peddles the hoax that charters have the secret formula for closing achievement gaps that are rooted in poverty.

“Innovate is a South Bay-based group founded in 2013 and describing itself as a “nonprofit organization whose mission is to build the parent and community demand for world-class public schools, and to accelerate the growth of these schools, particularly for low-income students and students of color.”

“Fair enough. But achieving this end has, reliably, taken the form of agitation for charter schools. The organization is generously funded by pro-charter outfits such as the Walton Family Foundation, which has put hundreds of millions of dollars into bankrolling taxpayer-funded, privately operated schools nationwide. Innovate’s own founding documents state that its raison d’être is to “focus on education reform that will support the creation of new charter schools and innovative district schools, parent choice, and strong systems of accountability.”

“Prior to turning its eyes to the north, Innovate won contentious battles in the San Jose area, besting opponents claiming that charter schools are cannibalizing the public system. They began quietly cultivating black and Latino parents in the Bayview and Mission two years ago, but it’s only in the last several months that this has garnered much attention. The organization began saturating area residents’ social media feeds with links to its report claiming San Francisco schools are the very worst in all of California for poor students of color.

“(The district disputes Innovate’s use of the data — but there’s no way to make the stats look good; generations of minority parents have complained that San Francisco’s schools have failed them, and the gaping achievement gap shows no indications of narrowing in the short term.)

“Innovate’s report is titled, “A Dream Deferred,” a Langston Hughes reference lost on few. Also lost on few is the exquisite quality of this document’s online form, which allows readers ample opportunity to share it with elected officials — and share their personal data with Innovate — at the push of a button.

“Innovate’s most recent tax forms indicate it grossed more than $4 million in 2015 alone, and its slick materials, excellent website, and a communications staff dwarfing the San Francisco Unified School District’s are indicative of that.”

Innovate implied that it has the support of the NAACP, but failed to mention that the state and national NAACP have called for a moratorium on new charters. They used the words of Amos Brown, the head of the local NAACP, and he was unhappy.

““You can tell everybody you see, whether in hell or heaven, that it is not my position to support Innovate and their move for charter schools,” Brown told us. “I want to make it crystal clear to those people: They are not to use my name in support of no charter school! I don’t appreciate this one bit.”

”Mission Local has heard many such stories: Innovate staff packing public meetings and clapping and shouting at the right times; Innovate employees crashing seminars intended for parents, participating in them, and scouting for recruits; Innovate staff trying to gain entry into community organizations.

“These are tactics more befitting campus Marxists or Lyndon LaRouche acolytes than a multi-million-dollar nonprofit with dozens of employees and a coterie of extremely wealthy backers. But the strategies employed by scrappy ideological groups do work — and can be even more effective when you have big bucks on-hand to pay professional organizers.”

Innovate is preying on parents’ hopes and fears. You can be sure that parents will never hear about the many failed charters that litter California, Tennessee, Nevada, Michigan, and other states.

 

 

 

 

This is a fantastic article that first appeared in the New Yorker in 2014. At the time, I posted it. This is an article that I should post at least once a year.

In it, Jill Lepore demolishes the myth of “creative destruction.”

We often hear corporate reformers say that disruption is a wonderful thing, as they close beloved local public schools and replace them with charter schools run by out-of-state entrepreneurs; if that school fails, then they close it and open another and another. Isn’t disruption wonderful?

I have always thought that disruption was a concept that might be good in the corporate world, but not in the personal realm. Children crave stability. They need a stable family, a stable home, and a stable school. They need to feel protected, because they are small. Disruption is unhealthy for them.

But we are told that disruption is the way of the modern world.

Lepore says no. She tears apart Clayton Christenson’s case studies about innovation and disruption.

She writes:

Disruptive innovation as an explanation for how change happens is everywhere. Ideas that come from business schools are exceptionally well marketed. Faith in disruption is the best illustration, and the worst case, of a larger historical transformation having to do with secularization, and what happens when the invisible hand replaces the hand of God as explanation and justification. Innovation and disruption are ideas that originated in the arena of business but which have since been applied to arenas whose values and goals are remote from the values and goals of business. People aren’t disk drives. Public schools, colleges and universities, churches, museums, and many hospitals, all of which have been subjected to disruptive innovation, have revenues and expenses and infrastructures, but they aren’t industries in the same way that manufacturers of hard-disk drives or truck engines or drygoods are industries. Journalism isn’t an industry in that sense, either.

Doctors have obligations to their patients, teachers to their students, pastors to their congregations, curators to the public, and journalists to their readers—obligations that lie outside the realm of earnings, and are fundamentally different from the obligations that a business executive has to employees, partners, and investors. Historically, institutions like museums, hospitals, schools, and universities have been supported by patronage, donations made by individuals or funding from church or state. The press has generally supported itself by charging subscribers and selling advertising. (Underwriting by corporations and foundations is a funding source of more recent vintage.) Charging for admission, membership, subscriptions and, for some, earning profits are similarities these institutions have with businesses. Still, that doesn’t make them industries, which turn things into commodities and sell them for gain.

I won’t attempt to summarize the article. I will just say: Read it and enjoy.

 

Jake Jacobs reports the complicated political story behind the decision by the State University of New York’s charter committee to allow its nearly 200 charter schools to hire unqualified teachers. New York State has high standards for new teachers. SUNY has some of the best education programs in the state.

Yet a SUNY  committee selected by Governor Cuomo decided that charter schools it approves need no qualifications at all, not even a college degree, not even a high school degree.

Behind this tangled tale is Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy Charter Chain, which has such a high teacher turnover rate (as much as 60% annually in some schools) that she is faced with a perennial teacher shortage.

Read on to learn why SUNY would undermine teacher professionalism.

 

Thomas Carroll was one of the authors of New York state’s charter law, passed in 1998,when Republican George Pataki was governor. The governor traded a pay raise for legislators to get their support for charters.

Carroll started a charter chain in Albany called “Brighter Choice.” It included single-gender schools for boys and girls. He operated 11 charter schools in the state capitol and hoped to charterize the entire district. He failed, the chain failed. But Carroll is now promoting the virtues of school choice on behalf of the Trump-DeVos agenda to denizens of D.C. who are ignorant of his over-hyped, costly, failed charter chain in Albany.

Carroll is not an educator, but he figured out how to make charters pay. His chain was handsomely funded by the Walton Family Foundation, and Carroll thought of other ways to generate funding and profits through real estate deals and clever use of public bonds.

This article by a union activist in Albany was written in 2010:

“They said charters would offer needed competition to community schools, but they didn’t say the competition would be about public dollars. Last week Albany Times Union reported on the city’s Albany Leadership Charter High School for Girls “asking for $15 million in tax-free public financing to buy the brand-new charter high school for girls built by the Brighter Choice Foundation.”

“Here’s the cute part. The nonprofit Brighter Choice Foundation, which runs all 11 charter schools in Albany and erected the building at a cost of some $10.1 million, is directing its Charter Facilities Finance Fund to ask the city to back its selling tax-exempt bonds to investors so it can buy the school building and — are you ready for this? — lease it back to Brighter Choice.

“Forget about whether the deal sounds dodgy, because it does. If the deal also sounds a bit familiar, it may be because Thomas Carroll, the prime mover behind the Brighter Choice charter schools, has been profiting from a similarly questionable real estate tax loophole for the past several years, a story exposed earlier this year by Juan Gonzalez in the Daily News.

”Critics say Carroll’s latest charter real estate trick runs counter to the purpose of the city providing tax free bonds, which is to jump-start job creation and promote economic development. No jobs will be created here; the school is already up and running. Where’s the public benefit in financing a project that’s already completed?

“The paper cites Brighter Choice Chairman Chris Bender’s bright expectation that the high school’s sale would “replenish the revolving line of credit” it holds with the Walton Family Foundation, the charity run by the family that owns the nonpareil union-busting Wal-Mart.

“As the paper notes, that cozy arrangement “could create another potentially controversial scenario in which Brighter Choice is essentially using the proceeds from the sale of tax-free bonds to bolster the account from which it builds new schools to compete with the city school district.”

“Supporters say the school does create jobs —some two dozen new ones — but that’s denied by an Albany schools spokesperson who says it’s more a case of job shifting than job creation, given that 200 public school staff members, including 100 teachers, were laid off in the last two school years.

“We should note that Carroll, the little man on the charter school stair, is the honcho behind School Performance Inc., which in turn runs the Charter Facilities Finance Fund that wants to make deal for the city.

“His adventures in education aren’t restricted to the state’s snow belt. President of the charter-flacking Foundation for Education Reform & Accountability, Carroll is also president of the Empire Foundation and CHANGE-NY, both far-right-of-center organizations that mask conservative ideology as fiscal prudence. Ripping off Albany’s tax base must be the new style in protecting the public’s dollars.”

This is what Juan Gonzalez wrote about Thomas Carroll’s Brighter Choice real estate deals:

“Wealthy investors and major banks have been making windfall profits by using a little-known federal tax break to finance new charter-school construction.

“The program, the New Markets Tax Credit, is so lucrative that a lender who uses it can almost double his money in seven years.

“In Albany, which boasts the state’s highest percentage of charter school enrollments, a nonprofit called the Brighter Choice Foundation has employed the New Markets Tax Credit to arrange private financing for five of the city’s nine charter schools.

“But many of those same schools are now straining to pay escalating rents, which are going toward the debt service that Brighter Choice incurred during construction.

“The Henry Johnson Charter School, for example, saw the rent for its 31,000-square-foot building skyrocket from $170,000 in 2008 to $560,000 last year.

“The Albany Community School’s rent jumped from $195,000 to $350,000.

“Green Tech High Charter School rents went from $443,000 to $487,000.

“Meanwhile, all the Albany charter schools haven’t achieved the enrollment levels their founders expected, even after recruiting hundreds of students from suburban school districts to fill their seats.

“The result has been less money in per-pupil state aid to pay operating costs, including those big rent bills.

“Several charters have fallen into additional debt to the Brighter Choice Foundation.”

In 2015, the state closed down two of the Brighter Choice charter schools for low performance, high teacher turnover, poor learning materials,  Eventually, all but two of the Brighter Choice charters were closed.

Scott Waldman wrote in Politico in 2015  about “the educational model that failed”:

“In total, Albany taxpayers have spent more than $300 million on the city’s charter schools in the last decade, Albany school district spokesman Ron Lesko said. Many of those schools have now been closed.

“We didn’t need to spend scores of millions of dollars to find out that the work our teachers and staff do and the staff in Rochester, Syracuse, Buffalo and New York City, and every city in poor communities in America is doing is hard work,” he said. “There is no quick and easy fix and privatizing education is no answer and that’s been proven here.”

“The failure in Albany has shown the disruption that charters can cause to public school systems and surrounding neighborhoods. The Brighter Choice middle schools set to close were built just a few years ago, near the foundation’s headquarters. Half of a city block was leveled and residents were displaced from their homes.

“The closure of those schools has created an administrative nightmare for the Albany city school district, which must now establish an entirely new middle school in the next six months to handle the almost 400 charter school students who were enrolled in the failed Brighter Choice schools.

“Albany was once among the top 10 districts in the nation when it came to the percentage of public school students enrolled in charter schools. Just a few years ago, more than a fifth of the city’s 10,000 public school students were enrolled in charters.

“The Brighter Choice schools are supported by the Brighter Choice Foundation, once headed by Tom Carroll, a lobbyist for education reform and a former Pataki official who helped write the state’s charter school law. Carroll was a prominent critic of one of Albany’s first charter schools, New Covenant Charter School, which he did not create, and which he argued should be shuttered because it reflected poorly on the rest of the city’s charter sector. Carroll criticized the school, which started in trailers on a vacant lot in Albany, for growing too quickly and never developing its curriculum. Its closure, over the objections of Governor George Pataki, drew significant media attention.

“The Brighter Choice schools, Carroll said, were designed to be better, the answer to New Covenant failings, small and with a “relentless focus on standards and results.” Carroll, who earned more than $400,000 annually from the nonprofits he created to encourage charter growth, raised more than $15 million from the Walton Foundation to help build Albany’s charter schools. He also turned to hedge-fund billionaires including Bruce Kovner to bring outside money for help growing Albany’s charter sector.”

So, having cost the district of Albany hundreds of millions of dollars, having demonstrated the failure of school choice, Thomas Carroll now claims that school choice is the wave of the future.

His own example proves that he is wrong. Unless we want to waste billions on more failures.

 

 

In 2010, the Tea Party and assorted rightwing zealots took control of the North Carolina General Assembly. They gerrymandered districts to assure their continued domination. They passed legislation for charters, vouchers, and cyber charters. They approved for-profit schools. They damaged every functioning part of the government.

Recently, they passed a mandate to reduce class sizes in the early grades but did not increase funding. Educators warned of massive layoffs, loss of the arts and physical education, and other consequences. Now a key legislator claims he has heard their complaints and plans to fix the mess. Educators fear that the chaos is intended to promote privatization.

On another front, the North Carolina General Assembly decided to replicate Tennessee’s failed Achievement School District. In Tennessee, the ASD took over low-performing schools, turned them over to charter operators, and promised miraculous results. There were no results. It flopped.

North Carolina  was impressed nonetheless. Nothing like copying failure. It created an “Innovative School District.” It hired a superintendent, Eric Hall, who is paid $150,000 a year. The plan was to take control of five schools and give them to charter operators. However, almost all the schools that were supposed to be placed in the ISD backed out. Only one school is now about to be taken over. The state has received applications from two firms to operate the one-school district. 

So the one school in the Innovative School District will have a principal, a superintendent, and will be operated by a reform organization.

How do you spell B-O-O-N-D-O-G-G-L-E?