Archives for category: Education Industry

I was wracking my brain trying to remember an acronym that is a basic tactic of negative public relations.

I knew I had written about it but could not think of how ro find it. Finally I googled my name and “propaganda,” and this article popped up.

The acronym is FUD. It has been used in the public relations field to discredit a competitor. It is a central tactic in the game plan to undermine public education.

It is in the dictionary.

What you need to know about FUD:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/public-education_b_4941678.html

In 2015, the Washington State Supreme Court held in 2015 that the state’s charter school law was unconstitutional because charter schools are not governed by elected school boards as required by the state constitution. Today, it issued a new decision and upheld a revised charter law.

Since charter schools are still not governed by elected school boards, we will have to wait and read the decision to find out what changed to allow these privately operated schools to receive public funding.

SEATTLE
The Washington Supreme Court has upheld most of the state’s charter school law, eliminating the specter that the classrooms serving about 3,400 students might have to close.

In a decision Thursday, a majority of the court rejected the bulk of a challenge brought by teachers unions and other groups. The court said using public money to operate alternative, nonprofit charter schools over which voters have no direct control is allowed by the state Constitution.

The Washington State Charter Schools Association cheered the ruling as a “win for public education” and a “big step forward in the fight to close the opportunity gap that persists in our state.”

The justices struck down part of the law that restricted the ability of charter school employees to unionize.

It would be ironic indeed if the teachers in these charter schools voted to unionize, since one of the goals of the Waltons, the Koch brothers, and Bill Gates is to build a union-free charter school industry.

Jackie Goldberg is one of the premier advocates for children and public education in California and, indeed, the nation. She was a classroom teacher for 17 years, a member of the Los Angeles school board, and a member of the Legislature, rising to chair of the State Assembly Education Committee. She is a legendary figure to supporters of children and public schools.

She writes in the Los Angeles Times that the LAUSD board must act to reduce class sizes, which in some schools, exceed 40 students.

A few excerpts from her excellent article:


Today, classes of 45 students or more are not uncommon in most secondary schools. (This excludes kindergarten through third-grade classes, which receive state funding specifically for class-size reduction.).

If the district truly wants its students to learn more, it should get rid of Section 1.5 and immediately begin hiring 2,000 new teachers to meet the class-size goals that are already laid out in the current contract. [Section 1.5 is a waiver from a class-Size reduction agreement.]

This would cost $200 million more each year. That may sound like a lot, but the district has a minimum of $1.8 billion in reserve.

Opposition to class-size reduction comes from the top. When I chaired the Assembly Education Committee, lobbyists would often come in and argue that the cost of reducing class sizes in California’s public schools was simply too high.

When I asked these lobbyists where their own children attended school, many if not all of them would respond that they sent their children to private schools — some to schools where tuition could cost as much as $45,000 a year and classrooms would have as few as a dozen students.

In other words, although they paid considerable tuition rates for their own kids to benefit from small classes, they considered it perfectly acceptable for children who live in poverty — 80% of the LAUSD student population — to be relegated to the third-largest class sizes in America. Really?

There is also some quiet opposition coming from a few well placed charter-school advocates. Why? Because if the district were to reduce class sizes by hiring 2,000 additional teachers, it would need to provide 2,000 classrooms to those new teachers — classrooms that some charter-school advocates are eyeing for themselves.

The Board of Education at LAUSD needs to put its students first. Though it claims to do so at nearly every meeting and on seemingly all of its printed materials, its claims are often empty rhetoric.
Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute from L.A. Times Opinion »
It is common sense that smaller classes make for better learning environments and higher grades and test scores. It’s also well documented.

Derek Black, a Law professor at the University of South Carolina, attended the Network for Public Education conference in Indianapolis and left convinced that the privatization movement is not going to survive.

Read it all. It is an uplifting take on the future.

He writes:

Why am I suddenly confident, rather than nervous, about charters and vouchers? I got the chance to meet and listen to teachers from across the country at the Network for Public Education’s annual conference in Indianapolis this past weekend. For the first time in my professional career, I had a firm sense of public education’s future. I have litigated and participated in several civil rights and school funding cases, dealt with lots of different advocates, and watched closely as the teacher protests unfolded this spring. In Indianapolis, I saw something special—something I had never seen before.

I saw a broad based education movement led not by elites, scholars, or politicians, but everyday people. Those everyday people were teachers who were not just from big cities, small cities, suburbs, or the countryside, but from all of those places and as diverse as America’s fifty states and ten thousand school districts. The teachers weren’t just young or old, white, black or brown, men or women, straight or gay. They were all of the above.

So what then binds them together? Their opponents would say they are radicals or self-interested. But these teachers weren’t that either. As I sat down across the table and listened, I was struck by just how “every day” many of these teachers were. They had hopped on planes and come from across the country, but they were not any different from my kids’ teachers back in South Carolina–who had not even hinted at the possibility of a strike.

These movement “leaders” in Indianapolis were reluctant leaders. Like my kids’ teachers, these teachers struck me as the type who put their heads down, follow the rules, teach what the state asks, and care most of all about their students. And while these teachers were obviously disappointed in their states and concerned about the future of public education, I wouldn’t even call them mad. They stepped out on a ledge because they felt they had to.

One teacher, whom I recognized from this past spring’s newspapers but won’t name, actually had a lot of good things to say about her teaching experience and school. She said her principal lets her teach how and what she wants and that her school is good place. If I did not know who she was, you could not have convinced me that she led thousands of teachers this past spring.

There is one stereotype, however, that fits these teachers well: studiousness. They read—a lot. They research—a lot. As a result, they know and keep track of stuff that normally only policy wonks and professors know. Details matter in education policy and these teachers were on top of them. If I were governor and starting a new watchdog agency—whether in education or some other area—these teachers are some of the first people I would hire.

Over time, I have come to realize that clients matter more than attorneys. Groups of committed individuals standing behind movement leaders are, as often as not, more important than leaders. Attorneys and leaders tend to be just vessels for something larger than themselves.

What makes this teacher movement special is that the leaders are also the followers. The leaders come from within the ranks, not urged on by outsiders, elites, or money. They are urged on by their own sense of right and wrong, by their heartfelt care for public education and the kids its serves. For those reasons, they won’t be going away, bought off, or fatigued any time soon.

Peter Greene is now writing on a regular basis for Forbes magazine, an absolutely splendid setting for his brilliant work.

In his latest article, he tells the sad story of Kansas City, Missouri.

In 1964, it had 77,000 students.

When the order came to desegregate the district, white families fled the city’s system, and in an unusual and controversial move, the system tried to meet its desegregation goals by luring those white students back with an array of shiny special programs rather than investing in a more solid base. Just before the turn of the century, Missouri okayed charter schools, but only for urban areas (meaning Kansas City and St. Louis). Since then, a portion of the district has been annexed and the district suffered under a Broad-trained superintendent (and his abrupt departure). Today there are 14,216 students in the public school system, and 12,468 in the various charters operating in the city.

Now, Kansas City is struggling to figure out how to co-exist with the charters. Dr. Mark Befell, the superintendent, is trying to figure out how to create a new ecosystem.

The proliferation of charters in Kansas City has also created a system that is difficult for families to navigate. Charter schools present a wide variety of grade ranges including K-6, K-4, 6-12 and, most improbably, 5-11. Parents have to figure out how to navigate their child through all thirteen grades while factoring in programs, location, and whether or not the charter will admit students in the school’s higher grades (a charter that doesn’t “backfill” may cover grades K-6, but will not accept students in the higher grades even if the school has empty seats). A student can ending up switching school systems multiple times in her educational career.

Unregulated charters have made a mess out of the Kansas City ecosystem, but Bedell is looking to clean it up. The school district has a unique opportunity. Charters in Missouri can be sponsored by a university, a school district, or the state’s charter school commission, and one of Kansas City’s major sponsors is getting out of the business, leaving eight charters in search of a sponsor. The state commission wants them, but so does the public system.

As in other districts, the question is whether and how the public schools can survive the charter invasion.

You may have noticed that I have posted several times about the importance of electing Tony Thurmond to be the next Superintendent of Public Instruction in California. I do this because California is a very large, very important, very influential state. Even though California is a blue state, the privatizers have a strong Foothold there because there is a concentration of tech billionaires, p.us Eli Broad, who believe that public schools should operate like businesses. It worked for them, so naturally they think it’s right to impose their beliefs on education. These billionaires’ influence is increased by the huge money flow into the state from out-of-State billionaires like Michael Bloomberg of New York City. Currently, the billionaires have placed their bets on Marshall Tuck, a candidate who morphed from banker to charter leader.

Tony Thurmond is a social worker and a legislator. He identifies with the kids he wants to help.

Senator Kemala Harris made a video on behalf of Tony Thurmond. By doing so, she risks alienating the billionaires who play a large role in choosing presidential candidates.

Bravo to Senator Harris!

It is not easy for a person in politics to thumb her nose at the richest people in the state.

She is a woman of principle.

Oh, and by the way, when both Thurmond and Tuck asked for the endorsement of the California Democratic Party, 95% of the delegates endorsed Tony Thurmond. Tuck has the endorsement of the California Republican Party.

The great Finnish scholar Pasi Sahlberg coined the term GERM to represent the Global Education Reform Movement. GERM is the advance of markets, standardization, choice, and rankings, which began in England and the U.S. and spread to other nations. GERM is corporate education reform, and no one has been more effective at countering the virus on the international stage than Pasi.

His presentation and my own appear in the same session. His begins at 27 minutes into the tape. He posted his slides and visuals on Twitter @pasisahlberg.

Pasi, the author of Finnish Lessons and Finnish Lessons 2.0, gave a brilliant talk about the history, the advance, and the stunning setbacks for GERM.

It is a remarkable talk, which follows my presentation in the first session of the NPE Conference in Indianapolis on October 20.

Pasi is currently working in a major education research Institute in Australia. He reports that New Zealand has ditched its national standards and will soon drop national testing. Watch for Australia to follow suit.

Here is the video of the first session of the just-concluded annual conference of the Network for Public Education in Indianapolis.

You will hear opening remarks by our executive director Carol Burris. She introduces Phyllis Bush, who gives a witty summary of what has happened to Indiana and how she and her friends built one of the nation’s first activist organizations to oppose destructive “reforms.”

Phyllis introduces me, and I describe my new book, which is about the slow but sure collapse of corporate reform. I bring hope.

This article by Tom Ultican tells the sordid story of rich elites who have cynically decided to destroy public education in San Antonio.

They have cumulatively raised at least $200 million to attract charter operators to San Antonio, a figure which includes funding by the U.S. Department of Education and local plutocrats. The lead figure is a very wealthy woman named Victoria Rico, who sits on the boards of multiple charter chains. Rico and her friends have decided to re-engineer and privatize public education in San Antonio. Rico is working closely with Dan Patrick, the State’s lieutenant governor, who loves vouchers, hates public schools, and was the Rush Limbaugh of Texas before winning election to the State Senate.

Was there a vote taken in San Antonio? No. Was the public asked whether they wanted to abandon public education? Of course not. The titans don’t believe in democracy. They know what’s best for other people’s children.

They have hired a superintendent, Pedro Martinez, who was “trained” by the unaccredited Broad Superintendents Academy, which encourages school closures, privatization, and top-down management. Martinez has worked in school districts but was never a teacher or a principal and apparently knows nothing about pedagogy. Martinez is a member of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change, which promotes privatization and technology in the classroom. He is also a big fan of the faux Relay “Graduate School of Education,” which specializes in charter teachers training new teachers for charter schools and has no professors or research programs.

As a native Texan, this whole deal made me physically ill. It stinks to high heaven. Everyone facilitating this private takeover of public schools should be ashamed of themselves.

They are not “doing it for the children.” They are doing it for their own egos. There are more failing charter schools than failing public schools. What right do they have to destroy the public schools of San Antonio? Who elected them? They have won plaudits from Betsy DeVos, the Koch brothers, and ALEC. They should be held accountable for their assault on democracy. I noticed that the Texas philanthropist Charles Butt refused to participate in this unholy cabal; he prefers to invest his fortune in supporting public schools.

I take this opportunity to name Victoria Rico, Pedro Martinez, and all their rightwing enablers to the Wall of Shame.

For years, I have read SAT reports about test results. What you always see is that student scores are correlated with family income. See here for some good graphs.

What I noticed this year for the first time was that the College Board (which administers the SAT) is promoting Khan Academy, a private venture funded by the Gates Foundation. The release says that students who got their SAT prep from Khan Academy got higher test scores. The partnership was revealed earlier this year. The courses are free.

In the past, SAT prep has been characterized by paid courses and the ordering of thick books to help students master word-comparison exercises and memorize the so-called “SAT words.” Official SAT Practice on Khan Academy provides online resources that are tailored to each student to help them pinpoint which skills they need to improve. As they practice over time, their study plan will evolve with them and help them level up to more challenging skills.

When I was in high school, we were told explicitly that coaching did not affect SAT scores. That has since been disproved and the College Board now encourages coaching and tells you where to get it.

Never forget that the College Board is a business, always looking for market share.