Archives for category: Democrats for Education Reform

A few years ago, as the charter movement began to grow and get stronger, it became clear that it had attracted the enthusiastic support of a large number of super-wealthy hedge-fund managers.

The New York Times noticed this in 2009 and 2010 and published two different prominent articles ( see here and here )about how charters had become the hottest charity in the hedge fund world.

One of these articles appeared in the “Style” section, as if to suggest that charters had become a really cool hobby for people who normally spend their time racing polo ponies or cruising the Mediterranean on their yacht. There was no suggestion that any of the funders involved had attended a public school or ever sent their own child to one. No, they were investing in good deeds by opening privately managed schools to compete with public schools, get higher scores, then take away the entire building of the public school. Mayor Bloomberg encouraged the co-location of charter schools, creating a scenario that some called “academic apartheid,” in which the charter kids had the best and latest of everything, while the public school kids on the other side of the building had to make do with the remains and enroll the children that the well-endowed charter did not want: those who did not read English, and those with severe disabilities, those who didn’t follow the rules.

Steven Brill wrote about the birth of “Democrats for Education Reform” in 2005 in his book Class Warfare, and he makes clear the sense of  noblesse oblige felt by those in attendance. The investment in charter schools was exciting for men (and women) who had gone to the nation’s finest prep schools and best colleges and had accumulated great wealth. He tells the story of DFER’s first organizing meeting, held at a luxurious penthouse; the guest speaker was the rising young Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. When Obama was elected, DFER sent its list of choices for cabinet positions to the new President; its choice for Secretary of Education: Arne Duncan. The best way to reform schools, they concluded, and to save the lives of minority children, was to create privately managed charter schools with people like themselves on the board of directors.

As I reflected on this bit of background to the role of hedge fund managers in promoting the privatization of public education, I suddenly remembered an email I received in 2010. The writer asked me not to mention his name, for obvious reasons. I never forgot his letter.

I post it here.

I manage money and I’m black.   I am distressed by the barrage of mail I’ve been getting from fellow money managers who somehow think there is a fairly easy solution to educating the “underclass” by using charter schools.  I’d like to share with you a few points from my experience which may help you contextualize my concern.

 

 

1.       Hedge fund managers typically don’t add value to society.

2.       Hedge fund managers often have very little practical real world experience.   Many have not worked for anyone else. Yet activist managers are very comfortable giving advice to operating managers of companies in which they take a stake.

3.       Hedge fund managers virtually never hire minorities outside of Asians

4.       Hedge fund managers have attended exclusive private schools and almost always send their kids to the same.

5.       Hedge fund managers know virtually nothing of incentive systems and largely supported the Wall Street incentives which nearly created the demise of our society as we know it.   

6.       Hedge fund managers and private equity managers typically don’t pay their share of Federal taxes.   (I personally elect to pay my carried interest as regular income)

 

With my experiences as a backdrop,  I’m somewhat concerned that groups such as DFER (Democrats for education reform) are receiving so much positive press.   

 

As I have begun to research education I wonder if you can point me in the right direction?

 

1.       Has there been a study on the effect of educational lotteries (like the kind that are run to select students for some charter schools) on the students who aren’t picked?   It seems a bit demoralizing to me…

2.       Has there been a study of teachers who would work for incentives?   In other words I’m not sure free market incentives work for professionals like all the teachers I know?.    

 

 

Background

 

I am a 22 year veteran of [tech company] who left to start a money management business.  One of my early management assignments at [tech company] was to manage public sector sales for the Philadelphia area.   This job afforded me a great deal of interaction with teachers and students of the Philly school district.

My current business manages money for clients with assets from XXX to several hundred million.   It is the intention of my family to pay out all business profits from our internal hedge fund to urban squash and music education in public schools.

 

Thanks in advance for your consideration    

We remember Molly Ball as the writer for The Atlantic who tried to persuade us in 2012 that Michelle Rhee really truly is a liberal and was taking over the Democratic Party. Of course, since then, we have seen StudentsFirst make campaign contributions to rightwing Republicans and to a handful of Democrats who support vouchers. We even saw her select a Tennessee legislator who sponsored notorious anti-gay legislation (“Don’t Say Gay”) as “reformer of the year.”

Now the same Molly Ball has another article, also in The Atlantic, plaintively wondering why liberals “hate” Cory Booker. I don’t hate Cory Booker.

I don’t agree with his views on education, but I don’t hate him.

But education is the issue that is missing from Molly Ball’s article, except at the very end, when she acknowledges the reasons that liberals have a Cory Booker problem:

“Nonetheless, it seems clear Booker will not be riding to Washington on a wave of esteem from national progressives. Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and a former communications director for the New Jersey Democratic Party, said there’s still time for Booker to earn liberals’ esteem. “There’s a healthy skepticism, given his record of cozying up to Wall Street donors, defending corporations like Bain Capital, and supporting Michelle Rhee’s extreme school-privatization agenda,” Green said. “That said, there’s a real willingness to take a second look, given his airtight commitment to oppose any Grand Bargain that cuts Social Security benefits and his openness to actually increasing those benefits.” Booker, he said, would “earn a lot of goodwill” if he committed to the PCCC-backed proposal to expand those programs. For now, though, the skepticism remains.”

At least, Molly Ball is now willing to concede that Michelle Rhee has an “extreme school-privatization agenda,” which is not exactly representative of the Democratic party.

But she never acknowledges that Booker has views that are closely aligned with Rhee. He supports privatization via charters and vouchers. He was chair of the board of the Wall Street hedge-fund managers’ Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), which pushes for privatization and high-stakes testing. He brought Mark Zuckerberg to Newark and welcomed Teach for America, the Goldman Sachs’ construction of a special housing village for TFA, etc. etc.

Critics of Cory Booker don’t “hate” him. But they wonder why he hates public education and the people who teach in public schools.

As if to demonstrate their utter contempt for teachers, the Tennessee State Board of Education changed the licensure rules on a telephone conference call that was open to the public.

The vote was 6-3. Some board members said the change should be delayed because the changes were not well understood by the board.

Not all the board members agreed with voting to adopt a plan that had elements that concerned them, even with the delayed implementation.

Dr. Jean Anne Rogers of Murfreesboro suggested voting the proposal down and studying the issues “piece by piece” rather than implementing something that board members did not fully understand.

“I just have such serious concerns with a couple of the issues,” she said.

A dog was heard barking in the background of the call, although maybe it was a teacher howling in despair about the board’s unending attacks on teachers.

As a result of the changes approved by telephone meeting, teachers’ licenses will be tied to student test scores.

This is a strategy that has not produced better education anywhere but is guaranteed to produce teaching to the test and a narrowing of the curriculum.

It is not clear what will happen to the licenses of teachers and other staff who do not teach tested subjects.

Perhaps Tennessee will invest tens of millions to test everything.

We know who benefits. Not teachers or students. Testing corporations.

The changes in licensing rules was warmly endorsed by the Wall Street hedge fund managers’ group Democrats for Education Reform. Their members take home millions of dollars in income every year, but they don’t see why teachers need to earn more than $40,000 a year unless they raise test scores. Teachers in Tennessee earn less than the secretaries of most board members of DFER.

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Horton teaches history at the University of Chicago Lab School, where President Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and Arne Duncan sent (or in the case of the mayor, send) their children. He is a passionate defender of common sense in education and an articulate critic of the current corporate reform movement. As a historian, he understands the nation’s historic commitment to support public education. He also understands that the Obama administration has abandoned any recognition of the historic principle of federalism that limits the U.S. Department of Education’s ability to direct or control curriculum and instruction. This letter was addressed to State Senator Kwame Raoul in Chicago.

State Senator Kwame Raoul

Suite 4000 Chicago, Illinois; 60654

August 6,2013

Dear Senator Raoul,

We know from every measure that the Wilmette-Winnetka, Niles, Hinsdale, and Naperville schools are excellent. They are the highest achieving public schools in the state of Illinois. Their average SAT and ACT scores and the percentage of students enrolled in AP classes, not to mention exemplary performance on AP tests, makes these districts respected by competitive colleges all over the country. Indeed, there is a national competition for graduates of these districts. Why do we need another measure that we cannot afford? Why are we going to pay Pearson Education millions of dollars for products that will force many exemplary schools to lower their standards?

You will see what a massive fraud the Common Core Curriculum is when these schools are forced to lower their standards to teach Common Core and then their achievement will be denigrated by invalid measures designed to make all public schools look bad. When the New York public schools were required to take Pearson Education developed tests this spring, dozens of exemplary schools and districts that have similar profiles to the Illinois public schools mentioned above, received substantially lowered school ratings. The same thing happened in Kentucky last year: scores went down in the best schools, and scores reflected preexisting conditions in underserved schools and communities.

Shame on the public officials of this country for turning their backs on the Northwest Ordinance, a document that precedes the Constitution in American history and law! The Ordinance made an historic commitment to public education. Federal and state governments have turned their backs on public schools because of their dependence on Wall Street funding for political campaigns. How can we allow this to happen?

If Bill Daley is the Democratic nominee for governor and he plans to support the current state school board, I will vote for the Republican candidate if the nominee will do something about Superintendent Koch, Common Core, and the PARCC assessments. Superintendent Koch received paid trips from Pearson Education and the state then hired Pearson to develop its Common Core standardized tests.

I am a life long Democrat whose family has proud connections to the Civil Rights movement in the South. This administration and its operatives like Mayor Emanuel, have all but abandoned the country’s historic commitment to public education. When will an element within the Democratic party of Illinois stand up for common sense in Education?

Senator Raoul, you have stood very bravely in defense of teacher pensions. Can you stand up for the teachers and parents of Illinois, and buck Mayor Emanuel, Secretary Duncan, and the Democrats for Education Reform who seem more interested in attracting Wall Street money to Democratic campaigns in exchange for support of school privatization? Alderman Burns (the President’s local political protégé) will not do so for obvious reasons. I hope that you will consider a run against the plutocrats who currently control the Democratic Party in Illinois. The citizens of Woodlawn where I live are sickened by what is happening to their neighborhood schools. An insurgent candidate for governor could gain the support of disaffected Democrats of many stripes.

All the best,

Paul Horton

History teacher

Rightwing groups have targeted Tennessee as ripe for privatization on next year’s election.

Last election, Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst pumped more than $200,000 into Tennessee races, mostly to Republicans but also to a pro-voucher Democratic legislator.

The pro-privatization groups Democrats for Education Reform and Stand on Children are also likely to add funding to candidates who oppose public education.

These groups want to solidify the control of far-right Governor Haslam and a legislature that is hostile to public schools and professional teachers.

Big corporate and rightwing money can be defeated by an informed public.

This is a twist. Boykin Curry, a major hedge fund manager and Wall Street power broker, sent out an email endorsing Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced ex-governor who is running for City Comptroller.

Curry was happy with Spitzer when he was governor because he was very supportive of charter schools.

Spitzer resigned the governorship after it was revealed that he paid prostitutes on numerous occasions. Now he is trying to make a political comeback by running for City Comptroller. His opponent, Scott Stringer, is Manhattan Borough President; Stringer appointed the brilliant, independent Patrick Sullivan to serve on the city’s board of education. The majority of the board is appointed by Mayor Bloomberg and acts as a rubber stamp. Sullivan usually is the only member who asks questions. Imagine that!

Curry is on the board of Democrats for Education Reform, a hedge fund group that raises big bucks to support politicians who want more charters; he is also on the board of Public Prep charters and the Alliance for School Choice.

Spitzer is not popular on Wall Street because he made his name by beating up on the financial industry.

But he is a reliable friend to charters.

I was trying to decide which poem to share with you, when I saw that a reader suggested one of my favorites: “Ozymandias.” What a lesson this poem teaches about life, time, the illusory nature of power and fame. And when we read it, we ask ourselves what matters most, what endures, what can we do in this life that matters?

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert… Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”.

Paul Horton, a history teacher at the University of Chicago Lab School, wrote the following open letter to President Obama:

July 12, 2013

Dear Mr. President,

I am very concerned about how you decided to go the way that you did with your Education policies. I was recently told by a close friend of the yours that “Arne’s Team looked at all of the options” and decided to go with its current policies because they would get us where we needed to go more quickly than any other set of alternatives.” I was also told, “that not everybody could be in the room.”

The problem was that you did not listen to experience. The blueprint for Arne’s plan for stimulus investment that morphed into the Race to the Top Mandates featured advisers from the Gates and Broad Foundations, analysts from McKinsey consulting, and a couple of dozen superintendents who were connected, like Mr. Duncan, to the Broad Foundation. Most of those who were invited to advise you were committed supporters of heavy private investment in Education who favored high stakes testing tied to teacher evaluations. Most of these advisers also favored the scaling up of measurable data collection as a way to measure progress or lack of progress in American Education.

If you had listened to the leading experts on standardized testing and the achievement gap, you would have learned that your policies were and are bound to fail. Our former colleague here at the U of C, Professor Coleman, was the first to establish this empirically. You should also learn about Campbell’s Law.

On a more personal level, Mr. President, you consulted many of your contacts in Democrats for Education Reform, an organization funded mostly by Democratic leaning Wall Street investment firms. And you were also very impressed by the ideas and passion of a Denver charter school principal and Democratic activist, Michael Johnston.

Michael Johnston has good potential as a politician, but he is not a qualified adviser to the President on Education matters. His record in Education is manufactured to look good. Over forty percent of his miracle Denver charter school class that graduated 100% dropped out before their senior year. This is an advantage that most charter schools have over public schools. Teach For America, where Johnston cut his teeth, typically has a very narrow and skewed view of American Education. State senator Johnston’s efforts on behalf of immigrants and redistribution of education funding are admirable. But many of us have been fighting this battle for decades. Johnston has had every advantage, and he his heart is certainly in the right place..

Many thousands of us have been fighting this battle for thirty and forty years and we remain relatively poor, isolated from the centers of power where big bucks are easy to acquire. Many of us have devoted our entire lives to helping minority students, yet we are treated very badly by this administration.

Thousands of teachers possess the experience, training, and commitment to advise you on Education matters. But you choose to listen to those who went to places like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford who have two years of classroom experience. Commitment, I submit, is a very important word.

The true measure of one’s commitment to Education is one’s willingness to sacrifice one’s will to power and economic potential to be successful in the classroom. TFA kids who go back to grad school after two years in the classroom and buy into corporate education reform are embracing their will to power. Most of these kids tend to have every advantage to begin with, they get an Ivy League education, and they are ambitious young liberals. Rather than staying in the classroom and truly making a difference by developing their teaching skills over twenty or thirty years, can achieve administrative positions in the charter world that have far more economic potential than teaching positions by buying into the mantra of data-driven corporate reform lingo.

You have left thousands of us behind and allowed inexperience access to take charge. You and your administration have encouraged a “Cultural Revolution” in American education. You promoted your basketball buddy and very close friend of your campaign finance manager to be Secretary of Education. From where I stand, Karen Duncan would have been a much better choice for Education Secretary because she has much more experience working with kids in a school setting than her husband. She knows what makes a great teacher from personal experience as an exemplary teacher. She is also much smarter and much funnier than her husband.

Your policies represent a new elitism. You seem to think that: “if we can get these really smart Ivy League educated former TFA people in senior policy, superintendent, and administrative positions, then we can turn this whole thing around.”

This idea is arrogant beyond belief, the equivalent of the “best and the brightest” idea that drove us into the ground in Vietnam, only you have decided to do it in Education. Robert McNamara was brilliant, he had an analytical razor, but he lacked a moral compass and anything resembling empathy for the lives of those who were dying in a “winnable” war. Mr. Duncan has a great deal of empathy, but he his policies are misguided. Indeed, in my humble opinion, his department’s policies are an inarticulate mess. If he were ever asked the right questions under oath in senator Harkin’s committee, we could very well discover that his use of the authority of his office overstepped the legal parameters of the laws circumscribing federal involvement in the formulation of Education policy. Ms. Weiss and Mr. Sheldon III, two of Secretary Duncan’s advisors who worked for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation prior to serving under Secretary Duncan, articulated what Mr. Gates wanted on his terms in exchange for tacit support for your campaigns. Several Wall Street investing firms also made it clear to you and to Mr. Emanuel that they were willing to support you if your Education policies encouraged private investment in charter schools.

You have bought into a corporate model of Education Reform: you seek to create competition among public and private schools, you encourage the “creative destruction” that your University of Chicago Business School buddies and Judge Posner love, and you seem to be gung-ho about selling off the public commons of American Education that were built with the sweat and blood of American farmers and workers. Do your policies work for young people who need stability in their lives? Creative destruction might benefit some kids (I was a military brat), but it probably does not benefit most.

Your Education policies embrace the management tactics of McKinsey Consulting that call for the firing of twenty to twenty-five percent of the teacher workforce every two years. You have said that Education should not “all be about bubble tests,” but your policies measure progress by bubble tests and they narrow the curriculum when they require standardized testing in some subjects, but not in others.

You campaigned on doing something about income inequality, but you and many of the mayors that you support are actively working to destroy what is left of the American middle class. Your Education policies work actively to destroy teacher unions. Many of your mayors and governors are working to bust teacher, hospital, public employee, firemen’s, and police unions.

What has happened to the Democratic Party when a foundational element of your education policy is to frequently vilify hundreds of thousands of effective and excellent teachers who have committed their lives to the classroom? You listen to people who are very smart and they seem to know it all. They are very polished presenters of themselves. Your policies favor this new class of ambitious young people who lack the commitment to kids to make a real difference where it is needed—in the classroom.

The question that all of you need to take a closer look at is how do we get and keep candidates who would be brilliant in any career into the classroom?

How do you increase the size of the quality teaching pool? The answers are there, and they don’t have anything to do with charter schools.

If Mr. Gates were really serious about Education in this country, he could invest in creating a system like Finland’s. The problem is that he is more interested in selling product than investing in four well qualified and well trained teachers in every classroom.

Progress in Education is not about buildings, it is not about technology: It is about human investment, not the expansion of markets.

President Obama, I have great respect for you. I have taught many of the young people who work for you. Ask your chef what a hard ass teacher I was. Please find the time to talk to committed teachers who have given their entire professional careers to improving Education in this country. This would require you to step outside of your comfort zone inside of Democrats for Education Reform and Teach for America circles. It will also require you to look beyond the mess that Ms. Weiss, Mr. Sheldon III, and Bill Gates have helped to create. It will require you to talk to Karen Duncan about teaching and schools rather than to Arne Duncan.

Please encourage senator Durbin and his committee to completely defund No Child Left Behind. Do you prefer to fund Pearson Education or allow thousands of teachers to be laid off? This is what it is coming down to. Will you allow the middle class to be further eroded? Or will you fight for the jobs of teachers? Will you reward Wall Street investors in Education and Bill Gates, or are you willing to fight for neighborhood schools and arts and humanities programs? Will you use Value Added Measures tied to standardized testing to further discredit teachers? Or will you begin to understand how complex real learning is, learning that can not be measured by “bubble tests.” These are your choices, Mr. President. Please look beyond your current Education advisors if you want to explore complex questions and solutions.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other issues with you.

All best,

Paul Horton
History Instructor
University High School
The University of Chicago Laboratory Schools

Diane’s correction:

A reader in Colorado sent the following correction to the above:

“Michael Johnston worked for a public school in CO: MESA Mapleton expeditionary school of the arts. Not a charter. Gary Rubinstein points out that Johnston s claim to fame–100% grads accepted to 4 year college —is a bit disingenuous. 77 10th graders morphed to 44 grads.”

Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, is heavily favored to win the race to replace the late Senator Frank Lautenberg.

Booker doesn’t like public education. He is an avid proponent of charters and vouchers. He is active in Democrats for Education Reform, the Wall Street hedge fund managers’ advocacy group for privatization.

As Jersey Jazzman points out, there is a credible alternative: Rush Holt, a member of Congress.

Holt is a physicist. He would bring deep knowledge of science and education to the Senate.

Booker would bring a determination to privatize public education.

It is not news to readers of this blog that public education is under attack in cities across the nation by a politically powerful and heavily funded privatization movement. In some states, this movement has moved into the suburbs as well.

This video pulls away the mask of reform and explains in clear detail the nexus of connections behind the privatization movement in Minneapolis. This district was once the largest in the state. Due to the proliferation of privately managed charters, it is now the third largest in Minnesota.

The video has no production values. It is a simple narration of a complex graphic that displays the web of relationships among powerful foundations, one very powerful family, national organizations, and corporate interests.

All the big players have converged on Minneapolis: 50CAN, DFER, TFA, and many more, abetted by one powerful local family that owned the city’s biggest newspaper, sold it, and now owns the online newspaper Minnpost.

Charters in Minneapolis are more segregated than the public schools and get lower scores.

These inconvenient facts do not slow the advance of the privatization movement. They present themselves as idealists, and some are fooled by the rhetoric about “saving minority children from failing schools” and “closing the achievement gap.” They are flush with cash and federal tax credits, and fueled by ambition, a love of power, media adulation, and–for some–tidy profits.

Left to their own devices, they will restore a dual school system, both publicly funded, one free to kick out students, the other a dumping ground for the kids unwanted by the charters.

Left to their own devices, they will destroy public education in America.