Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

When Laura Chapman read Some DAMPoet’s poem, “Economists are Like Weathermen,” she responded with an informative comment. I know Eric (Rick) well. We served together for years on the Hoover Institution’s Koret Task Force on Education. I wrote a bit about Rick in “Reign of Error,” and pointed out that his work has long applied econometrics to education. He was featured as an expert voice in “Waiting for ‘Superman'” where he reinforced the film’s message that public education is failing, choice are better, bad teachers cause low scores, and the best way to raise test scores is to fire teachers who can’t raise test scores. He has testified as an expert witness in court cases against increased funding for schools. I quoted at length from one of his articles in which he claimed that firing the bottom 5-7 teachers and replacing them with average teachers would cause a leap in test scores that would make us equal to Finland. The Gross Domestic Product would then soar by $112 trillion, just because of those higher test scores.

Laura writes:

Don’t get me started. The creep of econometric thinking into education has gone beyond reason, and the reason is this: Economists are addicted to scores on tests as indicators of anything that catches their fancy–school quality, teacher quality, instructional quality, cognitive skills, worker skills, state ranking in economic growth, national ranks in productivity, the fate of the nation’s economy.

On March 9, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an Op Ed by economist Eric A. Hanushek titled “American Teachers Unions Oppose Innovative Schools—in Africa with the subtitle “Bridge Academies show promising results in Kenya and Uganda, but unions see them only as a threat.”

It begins “No longer content to oppose educational innovation at home, the unions representing America’s teachers have gone abroad in search of monsters to slay.

For nearly a decade, Bridge International Academies has run a chain of successful private schools in the slums of Kenya and Uganda. A for-profit company, Bridge has shown that it’s possible to provide high-quality, low-cost primary education to poor children in the developing world….” https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-teachers-unions-oppose-innovative-schoolsin-africa-1489099360

Readers are at least informed that Dr. Hanushek s a consultant for Bridge International Academies. The WSJ is an advertorial for Bridge, well place to attract even more investors to this not so low cost system of education with all questions and answers delivered on computers.

Hanushek has been VAMing teachers since his dissertation, about 1968. He is a frequent contributor of dubious statistics to legal cases that blame teacher unions for students who are “underperforming.” Like Chetty he is a serial publisher of inferences about the fate of the economy based on student test scores.

I do not doubt that he and many economists are well-trained statisticians, but if economists who pontificate about schools could not rely on test scores as the coin of their realm, they would probably be out of the education business business.

Here is a sample of the amazing inferences that can be made when you rely only on formulas to think about schools. Quote:

“Our primary analysis relies on these estimates of skills for students educated in each of the states. Minnesota, North Dakota, Massachusetts, Montana, and Vermont make up the top five states, whereas Hawaii, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi constitute the bottom five states. The top-performing state (Minnesota) surpasses the bottom-performing state (Mississippi) by 0.87 standard deviations.

Various analyses suggest that the average learning gain from one grade to the next is roughly between one-quarter and one-third of a standard deviation in test scores (Hanushek, Peterson, and Woessmann (2013), p. 72).

Thus, the average eighth-grade math achievement difference between the top- and the bottom-performing state amounts to about three grade-level equivalents – highlighting the problem of relying exclusively on school attainment without regard to quality. ”

From Hanushek, Eric A., Paul E. Peterson, and Ludger Woessmann. 2013. Endangering prosperity: A global view of the American school. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

These three economists are also responsible for the use of standard deviations to assert that this or that intervention or comparison of schools yield a gain of “days of learning,” or months, or years. Those inferential leaps are really absurd.

Rita Moore, a pro-public education advocate, won a hotly contested seat on the Portland, Oregon, school board. Her son attended Portland public schools, and she has long been involved in support of public education. She holds a Ph.D. in political science.

She ran against a candidate who was principal of a KIPP school in Houston and worked also for TFA. See here.

In her response to a survey of candidates, she expressed her views about the importance of public education.

What is your stance on the movement to privatize education?

I am fundamentally opposed to efforts to privatize education. Free public education is America’s gift to the world. It has been the foundation of our society, the bedrock of our democracy, and the engine of economic growth, producing the American dream and making the US the capital of innovation.

Privatizing education is not good for students or this city. I am completely opposed to it, as is the vast majority of voters and residents of Portland. Public education is a door that all kids have the right to walk through and which we as a society have the obligation to fully fund.

Congratulations, Rita Moore!

David Safier writes frequently about politics and education in Arizona.

In this post, he shows how Governor Doug Ducey’s education plan is moving step by step to create a three-tier system of schools, thus abandoning the Supreme Court’s mandate to provide equal educational opportunity.

He begins:

Are you outraged at Governor Ducey’s “education budget”? You should be. After Prop. 123 passed, he promised some “next steps” were coming soon, but all we got is an insulting 25-cents-an-hour raise for teachers and a little money sprinkled over a few high-profile programs to make it look like he’s doing something. Watching Ducey quacking and smiling as he dubs himself the “education governor” is infuriating. But push aside your anger over those outrages for a moment. Something far more important happened in the Legislature this year, something which could change the nature of Arizona education irrevocably. It’s the one-two-three punch of vouchers for everyone, results-based funding and lowering of teacher certification requirements. Over time, those changes will lead to an increasingly stratified education system, with more money flowing to education for children of higher income families and less going to everyone else.

If Ducey and the conservative majority in the legislature could speak freely, if they knew the voters couldn’t hear what they were saying, their vision for Arizona’s education would sound something like this.

“We should have a three tiered education system,” they’d say. “The top tier has to be the best schools money can buy to supply us with our future movers, shakers and innovators—our captains of industry and the geniuses who help them create better, more profitable products and services. The next tier should be good, but not overly expensive schools to teach children who will become our educated professionals—our doctors, lawyers, middle managers and such. Give those kids a K-12 education that’s good enough to get them into colleges where they can obtain the career training they need. As for the rest, they really don’t need much of an education to perform the tasks expected of them. Their schools should teach them to read, write and do math at a sixth grade level. That’s more than enough from them to wash our floors, change our oil and ask, ‘Do you want fries with that?'”

We’re closer to a codified version of this three-tiered educational scheme than we’ve ever been, thanks to the work of Ducey and his legislative majority.

At the top of the educational hierarchy are the most expensive private schools. Courtesy of the new vouchers-for-all law, taxpayers will be giving the wealthiest Arizonans $4,500 or more to help them pay for their children’s tuition. Call it financial aid for the rich. Even with vouchers, the rest of us won’t be able to afford those schools—they start at $10,000 a year—so the rich don’t have to worry about the riffraff showing up.

What? You don’t think the public should subsidize tuition at private schools for rich kids? That’s old thinking.

Red Queen in L.A. reflects on the debacle in Los Angeles. Turnout for a consequential school board election was abysmal.

She notes that Los Angelenos have participated in rallies in great numbers in recent months, but when it came time to vote, they were missing in action.

In the school board election on Tuesday, only 9.3% of eligible voters bothered to vote.

From a school district that is approximately 75% Hispanic and 80% eligible for free-or-reduced-price-meals, comes an election of national significance, decided by a preponderance of very narrow, special interests including relatively affluent silicon-beach-millenials, attorneys, entertainment executives, and real estate investors from the coastal plain to the palisades of LA’s westside. For it to happen in the face of the last six month’s electoral imbroglio is at once mystifying and maddening. After all we’ve been through, here we are all over again witnessing the triumph of alternative facts, propaganda, Big Lies and even bigger money.

What is the cause of this apathy when so much is at stake?

Peter Dreier, a professor of political science at Occidental College, gives his political analysis of the Los Angeles school board election.

He writes:

[Nick] Melvoin and his billionaire backers dramatically outspent school board president Steve Zimmer’s campaign, making the District 4 race the most expensive in LAUSD history.

Political pundits will spend the next few days and weeks analyzing the Los Angeles school board election, examining exit polls, spilling lots of ink over how different demographic groups — income, race, religious, union membership, gender, party affiliation, and others — voted on Tuesday.

But the real winner in the race was not Nick Melvoin, but Big Money. And the real loser was not Steve Zimmer, but democracy – and LA’s children.

Who backed Melvoin?

Billionaires, many of whom live far from Los Angeles, bought this election for Melvoin. Their money paid for non-stop TV and radio ads, as well as phone calls, mailers and newspaper ads (including a huge wrap-around ad on the front of Sunday’s LA Times). Melvoin’s billionaire backers paid for 44 mailers and at least $1 million on negative TV ads against Zimmer.

The so-called “Independent” campaign for Melvoin was funded by big oil, big tobacco, Enron and Walmart, and other out-of-town corporations and billionaires. They paid for Melvoin’s ugly, deceptive, and false attack ads against Zimmer, a former teacher and current school board president. Melvoin is so devoted to the corporate agenda for our schools that during the campaign he said that the school district needed a “hostile takeover.”

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, who lives in Santa Cruz, donated close to $5 million since last September to the California Charter School Associaton’s political action committee, which poured big bucks into Melvoin’s campaign.

Among the big donors behind Melvoin and the CCSA were members of the Walton family (Alice Walton, Jim Walton, and Carrie Walton Penner) ― heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune from Arkansas, who’ve donated over $2 million to CCSA. Alice Walton (net worth: $36.9 billion), who lives in Texas, was one of the biggest funders behind Melvoin’s campaign. Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflicks (net worth: $1.9 billion), who lives in Santa Cruz, donated close to $5 million since last September to the CCSA’s political action committee, including $1 million a week before the election.

Other moguls behind Melvoin and the CCSA include Doris Fisher (net worth: $2.7 billion), co-founder of The Gap, who lives in San Francisco: Texas resident John Arnold (net worth: $2.9 billion), who made a fortune at Enron before the company collapsed, leaving its employees and stockholders in the lurch, then made another fortune as a hedge fund manager; Jeff Yass, who lives in the Philadelphia suburbs, and runs the Susquahanna group, a hedge fund; Frank Baxter, former CEO of the global investment bank Jefferies and Company that specialized in “junk” bonds; and Michael Bloomberg (net worth: $48.5 billion), the former New York City mayor and charter champion. Eli Broad (net worth: $7.7 billion), who hatched a plan to put half of all LAUSD students in charter schools by 2023 — an idea that Zimmer fought — donated $400,000 to CCSA last Friday, on top of $50,000 he gave in November. He made his money in real estate and life insurance.

Not surprisingly, most of these billionaires are big backers of conservative Republican candidates and right-wing causes. Several are on the boards of charter school chains.

Citizens United strikes again. Until there are campaign finance limits, big money will win more elections and corrupt our democracy.

I recently posted a story about Eagle Arts Academy Charter School in Palm Beach, Florida, which seemed to be in chaos. There was financial mismanagement, constant turnover, and multiple snafus.

Peter Greene dug deeper and exposed the back story. He calls it “Florida Charter Scam: Part 23,174.”

He writes:

“Gregory James Blount was a 40-ish-year-old former model and events producer who was working his way out of bankruptcy by teaching modeling and acting classes when he decided that getting into the charter school biz seemed like a fine career move. He recruited Liz Knowles, a teacher and private school chief, to run the school and write his “Artademics” curriculum. But Knowles walked away from Blount soon after (final straw– discovering he had created a Artademics company to cash in). Knowles recalled Blount’s argument for her to stay. “Don’t worry, :Liz. You’ll be rich.”

“The Eagle Arts Academy opened up, and Blount was cashing in. What’s repeatedly impressive about these scam schools is that even people with no education experience or even successful business experience can still figure out how to make big money at this game. Blount was no exception.

“The technique is familiar. The non-profit school hires other companies, and that’s where you make your money. Blount set up a business that he called a “foundation,” though it was not registered as one. The foundation sold uniforms to students at hefty prices, and that money went to Blount. Blount’s company also ran a profitable after-school tutoring program on school grounds, rent free. And when Knowles walked away from writing the school’s curriculum, Blount set up a company to do that; the school paid him for that as well– even though the curriculum was both late. A third company charged the school for consulting services as well.

“The Eagles Arts charter did include a clause saying that no board members of the school could profit directly or indirectly. Blount apparently got around that by simply resigning from the board during the periods that he was making money through his companies.

“So, does this story end with Blount disgraced and in handcuffs?”

No, he is opening for a second year in August.

The wonderful world of school choice, brought to you by Jeb Bush and Betsy DeVos.

John Merrow has been covering education for decades, most recently as education correspondent for the PBS Newshour, and he has learned quite a lot, most of which he puts into his forthcoming book, Addicted to Reform (out on August 1).

One important thing that he learned was that test-based accountability is not a worthy goal for education.

In this post, he identifies what he calls “the canary in the mine,” the bird that falls dead when the methane gas overwhelms it, a warning to coal miners to get the hell out. [Thanks to Reader Stephen Ruis for correcting my original description.]

The canary in the mine is the Broad Prize for Excellence in Urban Education. You see, Eli Broad is obsessed with testing and measurement, and he felt certain that the prospect of a $1 million prize would incentivize urban districts to push up their test scores.

But, the Broad Prize was not awarded in 2015 nor was it awarded in 2016.

Apparently, it has been canceled permanently.

Here’s why: It turns out that the NAEP scores of most of the Broad Prize winners (public school districts) have been flat for years. These districts have been living and dying by test scores, and it’s not working well enough to impress the Foundation’s judges.

It turns out that the big idea of incentivizing districts to raise test scores didn’t work. Scores were “sluggish.” Broad was operating on the assumption that the scores would go up and up and up, but he was wrong. Changes are incremental at best, and big changes are suspect, especially on a large-scale assessment like NAEP.

So, no surprise, Broad dedicates the biggest chunk of his millions to charter schools, not public schools. Unlike urban public schools, which must enroll everyone, the charter schools know the secrets of test score success: selective admissions and significant attrition.

Merrow writes:

Apparently it’s pretty simple for the folks administering the Broad Prize in Urban Education: Successful School Reform boils down to higher test scores. There is no public sign that anyone at the Foundation is questioning whether living and dying by test scores is a sensible pedagogy that benefits students. There is no public evidence that anyone at the Foundation has considered what might happen if poor urban students were exposed to a rich curriculum and veteran teachers, which is essentially the birthright of students in wealthy districts. Just the dismal conclusion that traditional districts are incapable of reform, followed by its decision to double down on charter management organizations, despite the truly offensive record of some of them of excluding special needs children and driving away students who seem likely to do poorly on standardized tests.

What can we conclude: Eli Broad and his foundation have learned nothing and know nothing about pedagogy or how children learn.

Sad. So sad.

The good guys lost. The guys with the backing of the billionaires won. The public schools of Los Angeles will shrink in numbers as the charter industry takes charge of the district.

Although the charter candidates wrapped themselves in the banner of Obama and Duncan, their victory is indeed a victory for the Trump-DeVos agenda.

A teacher in Florida reacted:


I am sitting here at 6 am in So. Florida crying. I feel like I am living in a nightmare and can’t wake up. So many good teachers jumping ship and the new ones coming in are doing so with no intention of making this nearly impossible job a career. With the chaos of moving ESE behaviors into the gen ed popuation as it is “least restricitve” to “restorative justice” (time out for desk throwers and send ’em back to class), overworked and overwhelmed guidance counselors, shared psychologists with 3-4 schools and an IDIOT state legislature that loves “births”, hates “lives” and depises the poor. Does anyone else see this as the beginning of the end of a free society or am I catastrophizing? What is wrong with this country? Why can’t the public see what is happening? If they see, why don’t they care? The defeat in teacher’s eyes is palpable. It can’ t continue.

As devastating as the defeat in Los Angeles is, we cannot give up hope for the future. As the saying goes, it is always darkest just before the dawn. This darkness is deep right now, and the dawn is nowhere in sight.

But the only certainty of defeat is giving up. The loss in Los Angeles was due to money and lies, but also apathy.

The message is clear: if we don’t rally the people, the parents, the citizens who owe their education to public schools, we will lose. If we give up trying, we will lose. Those of us who believe in democratic control of public schools that take responsibility for all children, that are financially and academically accountantable, that hire only certified staff, must fight on.

We must not lose hope. Without hope, we are lost. Hard as it is to sustain hope, we must persist. To abandon the struggle is to abandon our belief in a basic democratic institution. We can’t and we won’t. The struggle is not over, nor is it lost. Consider the loss in L.A. to be a loud wake-up call to fight the free-market ideologues and entrepreneurs. Consider it a challenge to redouble our efforts to save public education and resist privatization.

The two pro-charter candidates swept to victory last night in Los Angeles.

Nick Melvoin, the candidate of the charter industry, beat Steve Zimmer, 57-43%.

Charter teacher Kelly Fitzpatrick-Nonez beat Imelda Padilla, 51-48%.

It was the most expensive school board race in U.S. history. At least $14 million was spent, most of it by the charter forces to defeat Zimmer. Inthe two districts, only 75,000 people voted.

This marks the first time that the board of LAUSD has a pro-charter majority.

It was an exceptionally dirty campaign.

Melvoin falsely accused Zimmer of responsibility for the iPad debacle, which was in fact the pet project of former LAUSD superintendent John Deasy, a supporter of Melvoin. Deasy currently works for billionaire Eli Broad, who has proposed to put half the students in Los Angeles in privately-run charter schools.

When the new board members are installed, Eli Broad is likely to get his wish.

Zimmer’s campaign, whose lead supporters were teachers unions, is accused of associating Melvoin with Trump and DeVos. This claim is true, as Trump and DeVos agree with the goal of rapidly expanding charters as a form of privatization, and prominent donors to Melvoin’s campaign, as the article in the Los Angeles Times article acknowledges, are anti-union and Republicans.

But Melvoin took cover and won as an Obama Democrat, which in the case of education, is indistinguishable from a DeVos Republican.

Charter operators want a larger share of LAUSD construction funds and more of its buildings. They will now encounter no opposition from the board.

“Whatever their allegiance, the winners of the board seats will confront an ocean of challenges, including the seemingly inevitable growth of charters and the strain that places on the district’s budget and its ability to serve students at its own schools.”

LAUSD will now become a dual school system, with no constraints on charter growth.

The results are just starting to be reported in the Los Angeles school board election. First to report are the absentee ballots, which put the corporate reformer Nick Melvoin into a 60-40 lead over Steve Zimmer. The turnout was very low. Imelda Padilla trails 52-48.

You can watch the official returns here. They are updated every 40 minutes.

http://cityclerk.lacity.org/election/results.html

Eli Broad must be opening Dom Perignon. He is on the verge of buying control of the public schools.

If he breaks it, he owns it.