Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

Peter Greene read a new report about how to fix teacher education. Written by two experienced think tank desk jockeys who worked in the Obama administration, the report pretends to be progressive, but it is in fact reactionary.

The key, say these non-teachers, is to judge the quality of teacher education institutions by the test scores of students taught by their graduates. Just what you would expect from two guys who never taught.

The authors, David Bergeron and Michael Dannenberg, suggest several scenarios in which their plan could be imposed. The easiest and cheapest is just to buy the accrediting agencies and change their rules.

Greene writes:

“But really– what a perfect neo-liberal reformy solution to a problem. If something stands in your way, just buy it, and bend it to your will.

“Enter the Golden Era

“Once the New Reformster Accreditation Board was open for business, reformsters could put their stamp of approval on any number of bogus “Schools of Educaytion.” In fact, the paper notes happily, ESSA opens wide the door for all manner of “alternative providers of teacher preparation” as long as they can have their results validated by a USED-recognized authority, which– hey , we just made one of those a few paragraphs ago!! Yes, there’s some pesky law from 1965, but the Secretary can waive (aka “ignore”) that if she’s a mind to.

“The writers characterize the old system as the fox guarding the henhouse; they would like to replace the old fox with their own brand new reformy charter-loving test-driven fox. They are also fond of the same language used by choicesters to attack the public ed system– the current teacher prep system is a “cartel” that needs to be broken up, because these new guys want to cash in, too, and it’s not fair that they have to play by rules that they don’t like. Let a hundred sad versions of Relay GSE bloom. Let charter operators crank out fake teachers from “fully accreditated” fake teacher factories.

“And most of all, let’s base the entire structure of BS Test scores, one more terrible idea that refuses to die.

“It is the last building block in the grand design for a parallel school system, where schools are staffed by substandard teachers trained in only test prep, and therefor providing a substandard education, cranked out by substandard teacher prep programs set up to prove to a substandard accreditation board that they meet the substandard standards.

“Look, I am one of the last people to defend the current system of teacher prep. My solution is simple– replace every single person in the accrediting agency with a classroom teacher. My solution is certainly not to stage a coup to impose a ridiculous standard by which college programs are judged by second-hand results on a third-rate test.

“In the end, I can’t decide if these guys are cynical, arrogant, greedy, or dumb. I mean, it takes some balls to say, “The whole foundation of the teaching profession is wrong. We should rip it out and replace with our own unverified untested unproven results– by force if necessary.” It takes some serious greed to say, “If we just gutted and upended the system, we could redirect so many public tax dollars to private corporate pockets.” It takes huge cynicism to think either, or both, and just not care about the consequences. At this point, it just takes plain old boneheadedness to think that PARCC and its ilk can be used as a measure of educational success. But then, I’m cranky today. These guys have been around several blocks, have done respectable work in other areas. I’m honestly confused– how do people end up pushing such terrible ideas?

“The only good news I see here is that this is not a plan Betsy DeVos is likely to jump on. It comes from so-called progressives, and it involves more structures and institutions and rules. While I suspect that DeVos sees the same problem (“People have to jump through all these stupid hoops to become a teacher and all these dumb rules to run a teacher prep program”), I suspect her solution is much simpler (“No more rules for anyone! You can call yourself a teacher training program, and you can call yourself a teacher training program, and you can call yourself a teacher training program, and anyone can operate a so-called school and hire anyone they want and we’ll shovel money at all of them!”)

“So call it one more reminder that “progressive” doesn’t equal “friend of public ed” as well as a reminder that there are no limits to the huge badness of some reformster ideas.”

Gary Rubinstein has followed the progress (and lack thereof) of the celebrated Tennessee Achievement School District. It was the ultimate proving ground of the claim by charteristas that they could “turnaround” the state’s worst schools and vault them into the top 25% in five years.

As Gary reports here, they didn’t.

They have plenty of excuses. And the education press refuses to hold them accountable for their inflated promises and their failure to keep them.

The original architect Chris Barbic (one of the “stars” of the charter industry, having founded the YES PREP chain in Houston) left before the gig was up and went to work for billionaire John Arnold, ex-Enron trader, who devotes his “philanthropic” efforts to two goals: charter schools and eliminating pensions for public employees.

And now, the ASD has changed its goal, having demonstrated that its original goal was out of reach. And its second leader is leaving, having accomplished nothing. She too will go on to a cushy job.

Only the children will be left behind.

Gary reminds us that other states are copying the failed Tennessee model. In “reform,” nothing succeeds like failure.

I am reminded that last year, I had an acerbic exchange with an editor from one of North Carolina’s daily newspapers. I asked on this blog why NC was adopting the Tennessee Achievement School District, right after a team of Vanderbilt researchers found that it was not improving achievement (test scores). I dared to say that the experiment was a failure. The newspaper editor lashed out and demanded to know why I called the TN ASD a failure; it hadn’t achieved its goals “yet,” but that was no reason not to try it in NC. Wonder what he will say now. Give it another decade? Two more decades? Forever?

When I learned that the phony “Families for Excellent Schools” was forced to pay a hefty fine by state officials in Massachusetts, I invited Maurice T. Cunningham to write about it. New Yorkers are familiar with this billionaire-funded group from the time when it made a $6 million television buy to thwart Mayor de Blasio’s plan to establish accountability for charter schools. FES, pretending to be the voice of poor black and brown families, suddenly appeared with bulging pockets to shower millions on TV advertising and politicians, not what one would expect from “families” who live in poverty. As a result of their efforts, charters in New York City got the right to co-locate in public school buildings with no rent ever, and if they preferred a private space, the city was obliged to pay for it. What was certain was that not a one of the billionaires behind FES was planning to send any of their children to charter schools or public schools in New York City.

During the campaign in Massachusetts last fall, Professor Cunningham wrote about the dark money pouring in to influence the Question 2 referendum. Despite the money, opponents of charter expansion lost.

This is what Professor Cunningham wrote:

Families for Excellent Schools Driven Out of Business in Massachusetts

Maurice T. Cunningham

Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts at Boston

Families for Excellent Schools, the hedge funded bully of school privatization, has not only been exposed but driven out of business in Massachusetts.

Last year FES was leading the campaign, through its ballot committee Great Schools Massachusetts, to pass a referendum that would expand the number of possible charter schools in the state. Not only was GSM overwhelmed at the November election by teachers unions, but FES’s wild spending attracted the attention of the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance. This past week OCPF released a Disposition Agreement with FES that found that the group had violated Massachusetts campaign finance laws. FES acted as a political committee without registering with OCPF, and channeled over $15 million from donors “without disclosing the contributors, and by providing funds to the GSM Committee in a manner intended to disguise the true source of the contributions.” (OCPF press release here).

The consequences for FES: OCPF levied its largest fine in history, over $426,000, being the total amount of cash on hand for FES and its political arm Families for Excellent Schools-Advocacy. FESA agreed to dissolve its social welfare group status with the Internal Revenue Service. FES Inc. agreed to forego political activities in Massachusetts for four years.

Not only did OCPF release its Disposition Agreement it also required OCPF to divulge the donors it had promised to hide, and their contributions. FES’s list of funders was eye-popping. Boston hedge fund titan Seth Klarman of Baupost LLC was in for $3.3 million. Bain’s Joshua Bekenstein and his wife chipped in with $2.5 million. Jonathon Jacobson of Highfields Capital Management was good for $2 million. Other contributors came from Adage Capital Management, Summit Partners, and Par Capital Management. Alice Walton of the WalMart fortune kicked in $750,000.

Each of those powerful individuals was promised by FES that their identities would be kept secret, hidden behind the Internal Revenue Code rules for 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations. Except this time, it didn’t work. OCPF conducted a thorough investigation and exposed FES for what it is: a dark money political operation.

The Disposition Agreement should be studied across the country and state regulatory agencies pressed to follow its teachings. There is absolutely no reason why citizens should not be informed about who is spending millions to influence their vote. It’s shameful and the dark money train must be derailed if we are not to descend into a plutocracy. OCPF’s action is great news for Massachusetts and great news for democracy.

Parent activist Karen Wolfe appeals for your help!

STOP AB 1217, Eli Broad’s latest power play.

California BATS need your help today!

California BATS Action Alert>> Please call or fax the State Assembly Education Committee TODAY! (Fax – (916)319-2187, or contact info at the bottom):

Tell them you OPPOSE AB 1217. A vote is expected this Thursday or Friday.

AB 1217 is sponsored by Eli Broad. It is a GUT & AMEND bill. That means it was sneaked into other legislation while we weren’t looking. Please help us tell the Assembly Ed Committee that we are awake!

Although not technically a charter, the bill would set a statewide precedent that lets charter school operators circumvent local districts, the County Office of Ed, and even the State Board of Education. It creates a new authorizer–the legislature. This is a top priority of the charter lobby.

Please tell Assembly Ed Committee to vote NO because:

– Usurps Local Control. The new LA school board is pro-charter. LACOE is pro-charter. Why skip them?

– Why are legislators far away pushing for a school in downtown Los Angeles? Why don’t they build one in their own district? Assembly member Miguel Santiago, who represents downtown L.A., opposes this bill.

– It circumvents an already established process to open a school. This law would create even less oversight and accountability than charter schools currently have.

– The State Finance Dept recommends a NO vote on AB 1217.

– The fields named are the blue color jobs of the tech industry. Why not a school to prepare for NASA jobs, or biotech or Engineering?

– The math & science problems are in elementary school. A high school does not address the problem, but charter operators receive more money for high schools. So is this really about kids? Or is it about money?

– We don’t need STEM schools; STEAM schools include the arts.

– California’s powerful charter lobby says it is neutral on this bill, but CCSA came to the LA School Board meeting and asked the board not to vote against it. The Center for Education Reform says, “Permitting the creation of multiple authorizers is one of the most important components of a strong charter law. The data show that states with multiple chartering authorities have almost three and a half times more charter schools than states that only allow local school board approval.”

– It will open the flood gates in California. Small, independent charters would be drowned by the big corporate charter management organizations that are ready to expand.

Shareable Action Alert by California BATs: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=776937455825833&id=164608490392069

LA County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl is against this bill.
On the LAUSD board, all three retired school principals are against this bill – George McKenna, Scott Schmerelson, Richard Vladovic.

The California Department of Finance is opposed to this bill. Its report states:

“It would be more appropriate for the school to seek establishment from the local school district, rather than from the Superintendent. The bill requires the school to develop a similar plan that charter schools must develop when submitting their petitions for charter, while circumventing the existing process to establish charter schools in the state.

“It could result in a school that lacks proper oversight, as it requires the Superintendent to issue reports to the Governor and the Legislature if the school fails to comply with this bill, but does not give the Superintendent authority to rescind its approval of the school or take other remediating measures.

“It sets a precedent for the Superintendent to approve, oversee, monitor, and report on the operation of the school beyond what the Superintendent is required to do with existing state schools.

“It creates additional total costs of $1.4 million non-Proposition 98 General Fund over five years that are beyond those included in the recently enacted Budget Act.”

California Assembly Education Committee:
Fax the Committee (916)319-2187
Patrick O’Donnell, Chair (916)319-2070
Rocky Chavez (916)319-2076
Todd Gloria (916)319-2078
Kevin Kiley (916)319-2006
Kevin McCarty (916)319-2007
Tony Thurmond (candidate for State Superintendent) (916)319-2015
Dr. Shirley Weber (916)319-2079

AB 1217 is wrong. Please call or fax, and share this with allies today!

Wendy Lecker is a civil rights lawyer who specializes in education and writes frequent newspaper columns.

In this article, she shows how some districts and states are strengthening the profession while others–notably Connecticut– are contributing to a teacher shortage.

She writes:

“A serious teacher shortage is plaguing school districts across the country. The Learning Policy Institute (“LPI”) recently found that in addition to teachers leaving the profession, enrollment in teacher preparation programs has dropped 35 percent.

“It is no wonder. Over the past decade, teachers have been subjected to a barrage of unproven mandates “that hamper learning. They are judged by evaluation systems, based on student test scores, that experts and courts across this country have rejected as arbitrary and invalid. And, as one former teacher and current Colorado state senator remarked, “Teachers are constantly being bashed … It’s not the same job it used to be.”

“Connecticut is no exception to the teacher shortage, nor to its causes. Teachers have undergone a revolving door of evidence-free mandates, invalid evaluations and vilification from our governor who infamously declared that all teachers have to do for four years is “show up” to get tenure. Every year, hundreds of positions go unfilled in Connecticut classrooms.

“LPI issued a report in 2016 on the causes of the teacher shortage, based on a review of an extensive body of research. Of particular note for Connecticut is the finding that inadequate preparation is a major factor in teacher attrition.

“Alternatively certified teachers have markedly higher turnover rates than traditionally certified teachers, with the largest disparities in high-minority schools. Teachers with comprehensive preparation were 21/2 times less likely to leave than those with weak preparation. Accordingly, LPI recommends providing scholarships and loan forgiveness for strong teacher preparation programs, and robust induction programs.

“Some districts are making strides in identifying and addressing the root causes of teacher shortages.

“In Niagara Falls, New York, for example, the district embarked on a multipronged effort to cultivate teachers, particularly teachers of color. The district provides a scholarship for a graduate of its high school entering the teaching program at Niagara University. It also received an endowment at Niagara University for paraprofessionals who want to be trained as teachers; and provides financial assistance, reduced workloads and other supports to ensure success.

“Niagara Falls public schools provide high school seniors with the opportunity to shadow teachers as an internship. Twelfth-grade teachers partner with Niagara University to ensure that students will not incur the expense of remedial education once they matriculate. They have also partnered with the local community college to establish academies such as the physical education academy. The superintendent reaches out to local African-American churches to request contact with graduates who have left the area in order to entice them to return. However, the superintendent does not favor lowering certification standards or weakening preparation. Those avenues would not only devalue the profession but also would harm the needy children in his district.

“As featured in my previous column, Long Beach, California, also partners with its local university to train teachers, who student teach in the district’s schools. The high-poverty district has a 92-percent retention rate and credits its partnership with the university for protecting it against teacher shortages.

“Connecticut had promising programs for growing teachers. Last year, Bridgeport initiated a comprehensive minority recruitment program for paraprofessionals to become teachers. Hartford, Waterbury and CREC had similar programs. Just as this program was to expand, the state pulled the funding. The State Department of Education (“SDE”) had a successful program, Teaching Opportunities for Paraprofessionals, however its funding was eliminated in 2002.

“Connecticut also has high quality, university-based teacher preparation programs, which have made efforts to identify and address specific shortage areas and minority recruitment.

“Rather than build on these successful efforts, SDE and the State Board of Education seek to weaken teaching. Last year, they approved an unproven fly-by-night outfit called Relay to provide alternative certification.”

“Now, they intend to lower teacher certification requirements. One idea they are considering is abandoning the requirement that bilingual teachers have content certification, as if English Language Learners do not deserve a teacher who knows the subject she teaches.”

By the way, the North Carolina legislature killed the funding for its highly successful Teaching Fellows Program–which produced career teachers– and transferred the funding to Teach for America, which hires itinerant teachers from out of state.

Peter agreement has noticed a Democratic think tank in D.C. that sounds like an echo chamber for Betsy DeVos. It is called the Progressive Policy Institute, and back in the 1990s, it inspired many of the Clinton administration’s flirtations with privatization.

It’s back, and it sounds like a np mouthpiece for a Betsy Dezvos. Even DFER and other charter-loving Dems have tried to distance themselves from the Trump administration. But not PPI.

Its spokesman on education is David Osborne, and he adores privatization. He is yet another non-educator who wants to reinvent schools. And of course, he loves charters. Like ALEC, like the Walton family, like the whole privatization industry, he loves deregulation without accountability.

Peter writes:

“You may not have heard of the Progressive Policy Institute lately, but they’ll be coming up more often as their Education Honcho releases his new book. PPI is worth paying attention to, if for no other reason than the organization provides Exhibit #1,635 of Why Teachers Can’t Trust Alleged Democrats….

“I have not read the book (and it’s not high on my list), but I am curious where he stands on the charter characteristics of non-transparency, non-accountability, and generating profits for private corporations and individuals. Nor do I see any signs of Osborne grappling of what happens to “undesireable” students in a charter world in which no charter has to take a student they don’t want (a serious issue in New Orleans).

“There’s a whole world of charter mis-information here, coupled with the tone of someone who has no interest in a serious conversation about any of the issues that charters raise. That’s all just another day at the education debates.

“No, what I want you to notice, and remember as this group pops up, is that these are self-labeled progressives, folks with long and strong Democratic ties. The GOP is no friend of public education, but at least they never pretend otherwise. But here’s evidence once again that when it comes to education, some Democrats are completely indistinguishable from the GOP.”

Anita Senkowski is a blogger in northern Michigan who has written numerous posts about a for-profit charter operator who ripped off taxpayers and is now serving a term in jail for his financial crimes. She read Mark Binelli’s piece in the New York Times about charter schools in Detroit and its surroundings and hopes that he will come to Northern Michigan to see how the fraudster mentality permeates the DeVos charter industry throughout the state.

She writes:

Binelli’s fine piece, focused primarily on districts south of Eight Mile Road, the northern border of Detroit made infamous by former Detroit Mayor Coleman Young in his 1973 inaugural address. Telling “rip-off artists and muggers” to “hit Eight Mile Road” and leave Detroit, Young made few friends in suburban Detroit, especially Oakland County.

As they say in Las Vegas, the house always wins.

And although Michigan gambled on charter schools and its children lost, there have been winners.

One, former optometrist Steven Ingersoll, (whose story I’ve beaten like a rented mule for three years), walked away with millions. Although he’s serving a 41-month federal prison term, no Michigan authority (state or local law enforcement) has expressed any interest in prosecuting Ingersoll for his admitted fraudulent conversion of approximately $5.0 million from the Grand Traverse Academy and another roughly $1.4 million from the Bay City Academy.

If Ingersoll had lived in Mississippi and not Michigan, John Grisham would have already written a not-very-fictitious-sounding novel about him.

In its theory of the case, the federal government asserted Ingersoll’s federal tax evasion case demonstrated the truth of the sayings that “money gives power” and “unchecked power corrupts”.

“Steven Ingersoll obtained control over millions of dollars by creating and running the public charter schools known as the Grand Traverse Academy. The power of that money enabled Steven Ingersoll to corrupt himself, his wife Deborah Ingersoll, his brother Gayle Ingersoll, Roy Bradley, Sr., and Tammy Bradley.

As the person who controlled the accounting books and public funds intended for the operation of the Grand Traverse Academy, Steven Ingersoll ignored his obligation to separate his personal finances from the finances of the Grand Traverse Academy.

Instead, Steven Ingersoll treated the tax dollars provided for public education as his personal piggy bank, ultimately diverting approximately $3.5 million from the Grand Traverse Academy to uses other than the operation of the Grand Traverse Academy.

Steven Ingersoll also manipulated the books of entities he controlled, including Smart Schools Management and Smart Schools Incorporated, to hide his diversion of the public money that had been entrusted to him.”

And Ingersoll, on who reported to FCI Duluth on February 2, 2017 to serve a 41 month sentence for his federal tax evasion and conspiracy convictions, filed a “pro se” motion to vacate on January 24, 2017, seeking “post-conviction relief” based on attorney Martin Crandall’s alleged “ineffective assistance of counsel” — an attorney who’d sued him for nonpayment of nearly $362,000 in outstanding legal fees.

Ingersoll’s motion was denied, and he’s sitting in stir until January 22, 2020 — ironic, since he was an optometrist.

Let’s hope Binelli takes a look back here in Michigan…about 250 miles north of Eight Mile Road.

In November 2016, the state of Massachusetts held a referendum about whether to expand the number of charters in the state. Millions of dollars were spent on both sides, but the pro-charter groups spent twice as much as the anti-charter groups (mostly funded by teachers’ unions).

Much of the large pro-charter funding was bundled by a group called Families for Excellebt Schools. The names of many individual donors were not released. That’s called “dark money.” It enables the group to pretend to be worried families, eager to enroll their chilren in charter schools, when they are actually billionaires and millionaires who want to promote privatization. One member of the group is billionaire Alice Walton of Arkansas. Another is the chairman of the state board in Massachusetts, who offered nearly $500,000 to undermine public education in a state where he is in control.

FES pulled the same shenanigans in New York, pumping millions into a campaign to persuade the legislature to shower charters with perks and public space and money. But it didn’t work in the Bay State.

Families for Excellent Schools has been ordered to pay a fine of $426,500 for violating campaign finance laws in the state.

“An advocacy organization that gave more than $15 million to a Massachusetts ballot campaign to lift the cap on charter schools has agreed to pay $426,500 to settle allegations of campaign finance violations.

“The Office of Campaign and Political Finance alleged that Families for Excellent Schools contributed money to the ballot campaign in a way that was designed to hide the identity of its donors. The organization denies any wrongdoing.

“This is the largest settlement ever collected by Massachusetts’ Office of Campaign and Political Finance.

“Massachusetts voters deserve to know the identity of all those who attempt to influence them before Election Day,” said Office of Campaign and Political Finance Director Michael Sullivan in a press release. “Complete and accurate disclosure of campaign activity is the goal of OCPF and the cornerstone of the campaign finance law.”

“Families for Excellent Schools is a New York-based advocacy group, which gave $15.3 million to Great Schools Massachusetts, the ballot committee promoting a question in 2016 that would have lifted the cap on charter schools. The question failed at the polls.”

Indeed, the question failed overwhelmingly at the polls.

Families for Excellent Schools agreed not to engage in any election-related activities in the state for four years.

The fine is Penny ante for a group like FES, but it is satisfying to see them get caught hiding the names of donors.

A regular reader pointed out that I mistakenly posted the same Peter Greene column twice–on the branded classroom.

I had a senior moment!

To make up for it, I am posting Peter’s wonderful new review of the XQ extravaganza.

He points out that the show was like a Jerry Lewis telethon to “save” public schools. But public schools are not a charity: they are “a civic institution, a civic duty, a civic obligation.”

He writes:

“Charity is optional for the giver. Only give what you feel you can afford when you feel you can afford it. Charitable giving makes you feel good precisely because you didn’t have to do it. And you can give what you feel like giving (pro tip– for disasters like Harvey and Irma, send money, not shit that volunteers have to that may or may not be any use). You could send money, but you could also volunteer to put on a show or, you know, send thoughts and prayers. If you have better things to spend your money on, well then, the charity will just have to wait. Shouldn’t be a problem because…

“Charity is optional for the receiver. Sure, the thinking goes, it would be nice if they had a little more money to work with, but if that money doesn’t come in, they’ll scrape by somehow. You know how resourceful those poor folks are.

“Too much charity is bad. Wouldn’t want to make people dependent. Besides, this kind of support isn’t really sustainable, so we’d better not overdo it.

“Charity has to be earned. Of course, we only give charity to people who show they deserve it by displaying proper character or proper goals or proper deference with their betters who have the money. Or they can deserve it by having a really sad story. Undercover Boss is infuriating because in every episode we hear a sad story about someone who can barely support their struggling family/sick child/aging parent on the shitty wages and benefits that the company pays, so in almost every episode, the boss makes things better for that one employee, not asking if perhaps his company’s shitty wages and benefits might be hard on Every Other Employee!

“Charter schools are frequently pitched as charities, and charteristas like that favorite reformster chorus “Well, we saved that one kid from terrible public schools” while steadfastly refusing to talk about the 600 students still in that “terrible public school” or the obligation, as members of the civic body, to help that public school. Because…

“I gave at the office. Charity allows you to pretend that you’ve fulfilled any obligation you had to deal with the issue. Send the check in, then check out. Cash and dash. Drive-by do-gooding….

“Treating schools for poor kids (because, really, are we talking about any others) as charities let’s people glide by the whole idea that they have any kind of obligation to educate all children, including Those Peoples’ Children in That Part of Town. It allows a bunch of people to say, “Well, since I’ve given some support to a miracle school filled with hero teachers, my work is done. And I feel great about it.”

“When the critical mass of Americans (or at least a critical mass of people in power) decide to commit to doing something, they do it. There were no bake sales for the Apollo program or car washes to support the war in Afghanistan. We just did it, price tag be damned. When I contemplate the XQ telethon, I come back to the same old depressing conclusion– one of the fundamental reasons we don’t solve the problems of public education is that we don’t really want to. We just want to pretend we’re kind of trying while making sure the business is not too expensive. Please don’t tax me for the real amount of equitable public education for all– but I will drop a couple of dollars in the collection plate, and my friend here will do a nice song and dance. Now we’ve done our part– please go away and don’t bother us about this for a year or so.”

Samuel Abrams, veteran high school teacher and now Director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, at Teachers College, Columbia University, wrote an excellent book about the perils of for-profit schooling. Most of the book tells the story of the rise and calamitous fall of the Edison Project. The business magazine Barron’s published a scathing review of the book by anti-public school ideologue Bob Bowdon, whose film “The Cartel” compared the New Jersey teachers’ union to the mafia.

Samuel Abrams wrote a response to the review. Here is the original letter, followed by the heavily edited published version:

The original letter to the editor:

To the Editor:

In faulting me in his review of Education and the Commercial Mindset for focusing on the failure of Edison Schools rather than the success of National Heritage Academies (NHA), Bob Bowdon misses a central point of my book (“Balancing the Books: Slurring Charter Schools,” Sept. 4).

Edison was the standard-bearer of a movement hailed by Wall Street analysts in the 1990s to outsource the operation of public schools to for-profit educational management organizations (EMOs). Analysts forecasted that Edison and similar EMOs surfacing in its wake would run 10 to 20 percent of the country’s public schools by 2010 and reward investors handsomely. By 2010, the portion of public schools run by EMOs was 0.7 percent and has not changed since. Moreover, investors in Edison saw the stock plummet 90 percent from when it was taken public with much fanfare by Merrill Lynch in 1999 to the time it was taken over in 2003 by the private equity firm Liberty Partners, which, in turn, sold the company in 2013 for 80 percent less than it had paid.

While NHA has indeed tripled in size since 2001 to 84 schools today, as Bowdon writes, this growth along with that of other for-profit EMOs such as the Leona Group and Mosaica constitutes a blip relative to what analysts had predicted.

Furthermore, in contending that I ignored the consistent proliferation of charter schools, Bowdon misses another central point of my book. As I wrote in my prologue, “With the number of charter schools as a whole—from solo operations to network members—growing from 2 in Minnesota in 1992 to 6,440 across 42 states and the District of Columbia by 2013, the appeal and force of educational outsourcing cannot be questioned.”

Finally, in dismissing my argument that the complexity of primary and secondary schooling does not afford parents the transparency essential to conventional contract enforcement, Bowdon cites the complexity of Android and Apple smartphones as proof that complexity itself presents no barrier to the commercial model. Bowdon thus misses yet a third central point of my book.

While smartphones as well as their networks are clearly complex, they are discrete goods and services, respectively, and consequently comport with the commercial model because their effectiveness may be easily judged. In the case of primary and secondary schooling, however, the immediate consumer is a child or adolescent while the parent is at a necessary distance. School districts are accordingly well justified in outsourcing discrete services like busing or food preparation to commercial operators but not a complex service like school management. The implicit information asymmetry in the latter case generates significant potential for moral hazard.

Samuel E. Abrams

New York, N.Y.

Here is the heavily edited and sharply reduced version that Barron’s published, along with a defensive comment by the book editor:

Missing the Point

To the Editor:

In faulting me in his review of Education and the Commercial Mindset for focusing on the failure of Edison Schools rather than the success of National Heritage Academies, or NHA, Bob Bowdon misses a central point of my book (“Slurring Charter Schools,” Balancing the Books, Sept. 2).

Edison was the standard-bearer of a movement hailed by Wall Street analysts in the 1990s to outsource the operation of public schools to for-profit educational management organizations. Analysts forecasted that Edison and similar EMOs surfacing in its wake would run 10% to 20% of the country’s public schools by 2010 and reward investors handsomely. By 2010, the portion of public schools run by EMOs was 0.7% and hasn’t changed since. Moreover, investors in Edison saw the stock plummet 90% from when it was taken public with much fanfare by Merrill Lynch in 1999, to the time it was taken over in 2003 by the private-equity firm Liberty Partners, which, in turn, sold Edison in 2013 for 80% less than it had paid.

Samuel E. Abrams
New York City

Editor Gene Epstein replies: Bowdon wrote that Edison was a case of “switching a government-run monopoly for a privately run monopoly.” That was the reason he dismissed Edison for not being an example of competitive alternatives to government-run schools. Abrams misses this central point, apparently expecting Bowdon to be impressed by the fact that Edison was “hailed by Wall Street analysts.”