Archives for category: Education Industry

The Washington Post published a long story about Laurene Powell Jobs. She is of course the widow of Steve Jobs and has a net worth of $20 billion or so. The article is probably behind a paywall, though I’m not sure.

To say it is an admiring portrait would be an understatement. It is the story of St. Laurene. She went to public school in New Jersey. School saved her life. Her children went to public school. Yet one of her first hires for her Emerson Collective was Arne Duncan. She was probably impressed because he was Secretary of Education but those of us who have followed his career wonder what she saw in him other than a title. His Race to the Top was one of the worst federal programs ever to be imposed on the nation’s schools. It was a massive failure, a waste of billions of federal and state dollars. It was NCLB 2.0, and its major legacy is privatization, standardization, teacher shortages, underinvestment in teachers and schools, and demoralization.

Here are a few quotes from this hagiography.

Laurene Powell Jobs — like the inventors and disrupters who were all around her — was thinking big. It was 2004, and she was an East Coast transplant — sprung from a cage in West Milford, N.J., as her musical idol Bruce Springsteen might put it — acclimating to the audacious sense of possibility suffusing the laboratories, garages and office parks of Silicon Valley. She could often be found at a desk in a rented office in Palo Alto, Calif., working a phone and an Apple computer. There, her own creation was beginning to take shape. It would involve philanthropy … technology … social change — she was charting the destination as she made the journey.
She eventually named the project Emerson Collective after Ralph Waldo Emerson, one of her favorite writers. In time it would become perhaps the most influential product of Silicon Valley that you’ve never heard of.

Yet at first, growth was slow. The work took a back seat to raising her three children and managing the care of her husband, Steve Jobs, as he battled the cancer that killed him in 2011 at age 56, followed by a period of working through family grief.
She inherited his fortune, now worth something like $20 billion, and became the sixth-richest woman on the planet. By 2014, Emerson Collective was up to 10 employees. “For the first few years I worked here, there would be people who would say, ‘Who?’ ” says the eighth hire, Anne Marie Burgoyne, director of grants. “ ‘Is there someone in the Valley who’s famous whose last name is Emerson?’ That seemed like a fair question. The Valley is a place of reputation, so it’s logical to ask whose last name is Emerson. Nobody knew who we were.”


Powell Jobs, now 54, wanted it that way, and she wished she could stay out of the spotlight. She wrote a short essay on the sublimity of anonymous giving that she handed out to employees. One of her staff recently gave it to me to read but not to quote: Her policy on anonymity is anonymous. She was frequently seen but not heard — seated with Michelle Obama during the State of the Union address in 2012, vacationing with former D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty, whom she dated a few years ago after he moved to California. When she did speak, she seemed most comfortable having wonkishly impersonal conversations at forums with, say, a Stanford entre­pre­neur­ship professor on the subject of “Injecting Innovation Into Intractable Systems,” or with musician Will.I.Am on “Art, Activism and Impact.”



All the while, she tended to Emerson Collective, quietly assembling a kind of Justice League of practical progressives: Arne Duncan, education secretary in the Obama administration, came on board to tackle gun violence in Chicago. Russlynn Ali, assistant education secretary for civil rights in the Obama administration, co-founded Emerson’s affiliate for education reform, the XQ Institute, where none other than storied urban fashion entrepreneur Marc Ecko has landed as chief creative and strategy officer. (“I feel like everything I’ve done up until this moment was for this reason,” the former T-shirt designer for Spike Lee and Chuck D told me.) Andy Karsner, assistant energy secretary for renewable energy in the George W. Bush administration, runs environmental programs. Jennifer Palmieri, communications director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, consults on communications strategy. Dan Tangherlini, head of the General Services Administration under Obama (and D.C. city administrator under Fenty) is the chief financial officer. Peter Lattman, former deputy business editor of the New York Times, oversees media investments and grants. Marshall Fitz, former vice president of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, runs immigration reform efforts.


Then, last year, Powell Jobs unleashed a series of dramatic moves across a three-dimensional chessboard of American culture. In July, Emerson Collective purchased a majority stake in the Atlantic, a 161-year-old pillar of the journalistic establishment. In September, an arm of the collective and Hollywood’s Entertainment Industry Foundation co-opted the four major networks in prime time to simultaneously present an hour of live television, featuring dozens of celebrities inviting the nation to reconceive high school. Over the following weeks, the collective partnered with the French artist JR to create two monumental pieces of guerrilla art on either side of the U.S.-Mexico border that went viral on social media as satirical critiques of the border wall. In October, she bought the second-largest stake — about 20 percent — in the estimated $2.5 billion holding company that owns the NBA’s Wizards, the NHL’s Capitals, Capital One Arena and several other sports ventures.


The pace continued this year. In February, Golden State Warriors star Kevin Durant announced he was committing $10 million to help create a Washington-area branch of a program that Powell Jobs had co-founded, which supports students to and through college in nine cities. In March, Emerson Collective helped bring director Alejandro Iñárritu’s shattering virtual-reality installation “Carne y Arena” — an immersive experience that simulates what it’s like for an immigrant to cross the border — to an abandoned church in Northeast Washington.
She had our attention now — but what was she doing? Emerson Collective did not appear to conform to traditional models of philanthropy. Its worldview seemed more or less clear — center-left politics with a dash of techie libertarianism — but its grand plan was unstated while its methods of spurring social change implied that simply funding good works is no longer enough. The engine Powell Jobs had designed was equal parts think tank, foundation, venture capital fund, media baron, arts patron and activist hive. Certainly, it was an original creation — and potentially a powerful one. “I’d like us to be a place where great leaders want to come and try to do difficult things,” Powell Jobs told me recently. “I think we bring a lot more to the table than money. … If you want to just be a check writer, you’d run out of money and not solve anything.”

Of course, she plans to reinvent the high school, possibly the entire American school system that gave her a life.

“Her father was a Marine Corps pilot who was killed in an airborne collision when she was 3. Her mother was left with four children under the age of 6 and not much money. She scrambled for ways to make ends meet, setting an example of “work ethic and commitment to focusing on what you need to do to be successful or, in her case, to survive,” Laurene’s older brother Brad told me. Laurene and her three brothers — two older, one younger — always had jobs. The local paper route was passed down from one sibling to the next. There was no money for the family to travel, so Laurene collected stamps of countries she would like to visit someday. (Their mother later married a school guidance counselor, and Powell Jobs has a younger sister and three stepsiblings from that marriage.)
“

“School was the thing that really worked for me,” she says. “I did well in school, and so it was a nice, positive, rewarding cycle for me to want to spend as much time there and to excel.” Fewer than half the students at her high school went on to college, according to Powell Jobs, but she and her brothers were determined. With student loans, multiple jobs, work-study and a small family commitment, she paid for enrollment in the University of Pennsylvania, where she studied economics, political science and French. “I know it in my core that, without that, I never would have had the opportunities that I have in my life,” she says. Education would become Emerson Collective’s seminal issue. “For the students who I work with, I understand that school is their way out,” she says. “It’s really their portal to anything larger than what they see around them. That was true for me.”

She went to the University of Pennsylvania, then worked at Goldman Sachs, then on to Stanford Graduate School to learn to be an entrepreneur. But there she had the good fortune to meet Steve Jobs, who was giving a lecture, and the rest is history. After his death, she set up the Emerson Collective, named for Ralph Waldo Emerson.

“She set up the collective as a limited liability company rather than a foundation, not unlike the three-year-old Chan Zuckerberg Initiative established by Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg. This gives flexibility to do more than just make grants to nonprofit groups. “When philanthropists are engaged in the type of system change that Laurene is,” Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, a venture philanthropy expert at Stanford and a friend of Powell Jobs’s, told me later, “you have to be as nimble as possible because ecosystems are constantly shifting, stakeholders are developing new positions on particular issues, political contexts change, economic forces evolve.”

Emerson invests in private companies, Powell Jobs said, not because the goal is to make money but because Silicon Valley has shown her that “amazing entrepreneurs who … are 100 percent aligned with our mission” can find solutions that might not occur to a nonprofit. Emerson is also able to back advocacy groups, launch its own activist campaigns and contribute to political organizations. It has given $2.6 million at the federal level since 2013, primarily to Emerge America, dedicated to recruiting Democratic women candidates, and to Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC. Powell Jobs herself is a registered independent and has made about $4 million in federal campaign contributions since 1997, mainly to Democratic candidates and organizations in line with issues of concern to Emerson.


“The LLC structure also means Emerson need not disclose details of its assets and spending. “The majority of her philanthropy, no one knows about,” Arrillaga-Andreessen said. However, a tax filing Powell Jobs signed last fall offers a clue to the scale, showing that a related entity called the Emerson Collective Foundation began 2017 with $1.2 billion available, largely from Disney stocks and bonds, a fruit of Steve Jobs’s sale of Pixar to Disney in 2006.

“
For the crew Powell Jobs has assembled, being tapped to join the collective was like being called to a mission. In early 2016, shortly after he had left the Obama administration, Arne Duncan mentioned to Powell Jobs his idea for a novel experiment to confront the gun carnage in his home town of Chicago. “I said that I can’t guarantee you that I’ll be successful — I may fail,” Duncan recalled to me. “She said basically, ‘I want to take on some of society’s most in­trac­table problems for the next 25 years and then pass the torch to someone else. So why don’t I support you in that work?’ … I think she was actually attracted to the level of difficulty.””

Another passion is immigration reform. Who did she hire to make a documentary? Davis Guggenheim. Unmentioned in the article is his turkey, “Waiting for Superman.”

“In 2013 Powell Jobs commissioned documentarian Davis Guggenheim (“An Inconvenient Truth,” “He Named Me Malala”) to make a film called “The Dream Is Now” about dreamers hoping to build lives in this country. She wanted it done in a matter of months to have a timely influence on the political debate. It was typical of Emerson Collective’s approach to issues. Alongside the usual tools of polling and policy advocacy, it will create, say, an “immigration innovation incubator” to foster tech solutions, and it will enlist artists and storytellers to appeal to the public on alternative channels.


“She was very involved in helping us pick who we should follow, how we should frame the issue,” Guggenheim told me. “We talk a lot about changing hearts and minds, about engaging people and telling stories that break through. … She is very focused on how do we tell stories that can change hearts and minds.”

Immigration is perhaps the most partisan fight into which she is pushing a stack of her billions of chips, on behalf of those who see the issue the way she does. On the other side is a countervailing apparatus of funders, thinkers and advocates pushing for tighter borders, fewer legal immigrants and more deportations. Since she entered the fray in 2001, her opponents have won nearly every battle in Washington, so she is turning her tactics away from the capital. “We’re looking for ways to activate people around the country, so that they can understand what’s at stake,” she says. “So that they can start building a chorus that Congress can’t ignore.

”
Her strategy on education policy has been similarly novel. The long list of storytellers in acting and song who participated in last fall’s prime-time education reform special — from Tom Hanks and Viola Davis to Lin-Manuel Miranda and Andra Day — did a good job of selling Emerson’s approach to reimagining high school. The XQ Institute, Emerson’s independent education arm, has pledged $115 million to 18 schools across the country pursuing their own innovative approaches, including Washington Leadership Academy, a tech-focused public charter in the District. Without prescribing exact models, the group wants schools to focus on the competence a student achieves in a given subject more than the number of hours she sits in that class. There’s an emphasis on knowledge relevant to employers of the future.“

Immigration reform is a terrific issue for LPJ. She should definitely put her eggs in that basket, but someone should explain that you can’t fix our insane policy at the grassroots, but only in Washington.

The article says the first check she ever wrote to a charity was to the Southern Poverty Law Center for $20, when she was in high school. I hope she writes lots more checks to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Their work is important. They help people. They don’t toy with their lives and institutions.

Here is Jan Resseger’s take on Laurene’s plans:

Laurene Powell Jobs’ Glitzy Projects versus School Reform that Is Basic and Essential

Last night, the San Francisco Board of Education voted unanimously to reject an “Innovate” charter school. The Walton Family Foundation has poured many millions into the Innovate chain in a sustained effort to disrupt public schools and replace them with non-union, privately managed charters.

Innovate will appeal the rejection to the County board. If they lose there, they will appeal to the state board.

The great change in last night’s hearing is that the board was not fooled. They know that the charter is there to take money away from the schools that are open to all students.

The NAACP was very effective in saying so.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-school-board-shoots-charter-school-application-backed-silicon-valley-education-reform-group/

Tom Ultican, recently retired teacher of physics, has embarked on a mission to cover the Destroy Public Education movement. His posts have taken him to several cities, where the school choice movement has destroyed public education without putting anything better in its place. In fact, the “new” schools are usually worse than the public schools.

In his latest foray, he studies the destruction wrought by the Destroy Public Education movement on the public schools of Philadelphia.

The trouble started when Republican Governor Tom Ridge hired the Edison Project to conduct a study of the Philadelphia public schools and come up with solutions (such as, taking charge of the entire district themselves, nothing like conflict of interest to stir the commercial juices.)

Ultican relies heavily on Samuel Abrams’ excellent book Education and the Commercial Mindset, which began life as a study of Chris Whittle’s Edison Project.

Things went downhill from there. The whole point of “reform” was not to make the schools better, but to save money.

“Edison’s report was not impartial. Both the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News called it a charade. (Abrams 116) The report was overly critical of the school district and recommended that the Edison Project be put in charge of running it. Edison also called for reforming “failing” schools by turning them into charter schools.

“Helen Gym (now on the Philadelphia city council) speaking for Asian Americans United, asked, “If this [privatization] is so innovative why aren’t they doing it in Lower Merion.” (Abrams 114) This turns out to have been a perceptive question. Lower Merion is 85% white and rich. Still today, there appear to be no charter schools in Lower Merion Township. Charter schools mostly exist in poor communities without the political capital to protect their schools.”

Broadies, Broadies everywhere! Closing public schools. Starving them. Opening charters. Destroying the district. The great Charade of “Reform.”

William Mathis is managing director of the National Education Policy Center and Vice-President of the Vermont State Board of Education. He sent this report to the blog exclusively. Hanushek is a strong believer in testing, accountability, and school choice, as well as annually firing the bottom 5% of teachers, as identified by their students’ test scores.

Dr. Hanushek Again Imagines Saving Trillions of Dollars

William J. Mathis

In a recent brief published by the American Enterprise Institute, economist Eric Hanushek announces that $76 trillion (that’s a “T”) dollars will be generated or saved by adopting unspecified educational reforms.[i] That’s almost a four-fold increase! The closest explanation of these mysterious school improvements is that they are “incentives” for “teachers and leaders.” In a longer technical version of the brief, the authors dismiss the need for more specifics stating “the precise source of the given improvements is not important.”[ii](p.466)

 

Hanushek is the Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution of Stanford University, best known for his frequent testimony on behalf of defendants in school-funding litigation. But his work also includes analyses of teacher effectiveness, among other topics.

 

The argument made in the new AEI brief is one he and his colleagues have made repeatedly over the years. It goes like this: If we imagine that standardized test scores go up a certain amount, this will add trillions to the GDP. Alas, this argument is little more than a numerological exercise in assumptions, multiplication and extrapolation.  The astonishing increased dollar amounts are the result of “new estimates of … human capital stock” and assumptions about growth, which are then extrapolated to the nation. It assumes that NAEP test scores are a valid measure of workforce quality which will, in turn, drive the economic gains. As noted, this improved workforce is developed through unspecified “significant changes in school policies.”

The AEI brief does not present the actual methods or results, but some of these are found in the original technical paper, which itself circles back to the authors’ other work. In the end, the analyses fail in predictable ways:

  • They oversimplify the complex relationship between education and national wealth,
  • They are based on correlations which are interpreted as causal,
  • The statistical approach exaggerates the results, and
  • Workforce projections do not support this static scenario.

 

Oversimplifying – Education and wealth are certainly connected. But assuming education has this pervasive power over the economy ignores the complex set of interactive factors affecting the economy. This includes infrastructure, transportation, investments, political instability, climate, poverty, social changes and macroeconomic supports.[iii] In fact, two-thirds of the variance in test scores is attributable to outside of school influences.[iv]

 

Correlations are interpreted as causation – “Gains from school activities” certainly sounds causal. More specifically, the long paper flatly states the “… gains in annual GDP [are] due to educational reforms.” (p.470). But then, they back away and state causality is “challenging.” (p.479)

The core assumption of the piece is illustrated in a scatterplot of test scores and state economic growth (Figure 1, reproduced below). This includes an “estimated impact” of education on a state’s wealth. Little or no consideration is given to more important variables that might be the causes of the limited correlation.

 

Screen Shot 2018-06-04 at 9.04.13 PM

 

Statistical Exaggerations – Although a best fit line (regression) is super-imposed on the scatterplot, the pattern is more suggestive of a shot-gun blast than an illustration of a strong relationship. Going back to the original study, we find that test scores explain a mere 23% of the variance in economic growth – and this may be largely due to the aforementioned “third variables.” This weak relationship is far from being as strong as touted. Furthermore, achievement test scores are collapsed into “state aggregate scores.” When scores are collapsed in this manner, the effect is to exaggerate a correlation.

 

Mystery Methods – Beyond one short note below the study’s Figure 1, the AEI paper does not share how these numbers were derived. How these were calculated for each state goes unexplained. Improving teaching and teacher leaders is put forth as the leading reform, but this also is not defended or explained. Neither socio-economic factors nor adequate funding are addressed, although a vast and relevant literature points to their importance. Yet, improvements are claimed to be “enormous” and states should be “willing to make substantial changes.” But how these strong but unknown recommendations are derived is not explained. However, the long paper does present a rich trove of irrelevant statistical exotica.

 

Workforce Extrapolations – The brief misses the mark with its implicit assumption that the work force and economic needs will remain static and can be easily extrapolated. In an age of emerging artificial intelligence and with virtually every job being transformed in the next half-century, it seems a long reach to assume that the form, function and role of education (and the economic drivers) will remain unchanged.

[1]  Hanushek, Eric A. (May 2018). Every State’s Economic Future Lies with School Reform. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Every-States-Economic-Future-Lies-with-School-Reform.pdf? FRPc013V1FcL1JnZHg4V0Vsd253Z0kzUWsxVjc3dGhUSGVzRURhWUZORyttNDlQdWR2aVgifQ%3D%3D

[1] Eric A. Hanushek, Ruhose, J. & Woessmann, L. (Winter 2017) “Economic Gains from Educational Reform by US States,” Journal of Human Capital 11, no. 4 (447-86). Retrieved June 1, 2018 from http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek%2BRuhose%2BWoessmann%202017%20JHC%2011%284%29_0.pdf

[1] Sala-I-Marten, X., et al. (2014). The Global Competitiveness Index. Retrieved May 29, 2018 from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2014-15/GCR_Chapter1.1_2014-15.pdf

[1] Rothstein, R. (2016). In Mathis and Trujillo, Learning from the Federal Market Based Reforms. Charlotte, N.C. : Information Age Publishing. p. 432.

[1] Hanushek, E (Summer 2011), “Valuing Teachers; How much is a good teacher worth?” Education Next, 11(3). Retrieved May 29, 2018 from http://hanushek.stanford.edu/publications/valuing-teachers-how-much-good-teacher-worth

 

Ah, remember the old days of saving poor black kids from failing schools?

Here is a charter school in Philadelphia that won a renewal on the condition that it attempt to achieve greater racial diversity and get rid of financial conflicts of interest. The charter school is opposing the conditions on its renewal. Too onerous! So what if its schools are majority white in a district that is 14% white? So what if its owners and directors have conflicts of interest? Why should that matter?

The SRC approved the new charter on April 26 after originally denying it on Feb. 22. The conditions were significant – reducing the enrollment total by a third, requiring the school to give preference to students from nearby zip codes with high non-white populations, and changing policies to conform with various state laws.

Franklin Towne’s existing two schools, which enroll 2,100 students in grades K-12, are 70 and 83 percent white, although they are located in a diverse section of the city. In the School District overall, only 14 percent of students are white.

The SRC also imposed conditions on Franklin Towne’s operational structure, which the District’s Charter Schools Office, in evaluating the application, found rife with conflicts of interest among its schools, its boards, its management organization, and its landlord.

Why not just copy the Minneapolis-St. Paul model and have charter schools that are all white, and others that are all-black? Do you have a problem with that?

Charters are more segregated than public schools. We know that. Who will have the nerve to oppose it when the Founding Fathers of charters in Minneapolis-St. Paul think that segregation and non-union charters are just fine, even, well, “progressive.”

Apparently, if you are part of the charter movement, separate but equal is a swell doctrine.

Denis Smith is a retired educator who worked in the state charter school office. This opinion piece was published by the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch.

Is the Public Records Act working in Ohio, particularly when it comes to receiving information about charter schools? If one recent example is typical of compliance with the statute, the answer is probably no.

According to the attorney general’s website, “When it receives a public-records request for specific existing records, the public office must provide inspection of the requested records during regular business hours or provide copies within a reasonable period of time.”

The key question, of course, is who provides the definition of a reasonable period?

On May 2, William Phillis, executive director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding, filed a public-records request with three organizations that are central to the state’s charter-school industry. These entities include the Ohio Department of Education, which provides the overall legal oversight, and two of the largest charter-school sponsors, or authorizers, as they are also known.

The first sponsor addressed was the Educational Service Center of Lake Erie West. Like ODE, the ESC of Lake Erie West, formerly known as the Lucas County ESC, is a public agency fully accountable under the Public Records Act. Some readers may recall the ESC as the long-time sponsor of the now-defunct ECOT, the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow.

Phillis also sent a records request to an additional sponsor, the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, which, unlike ODE and the educational service center, is a nonprofit organization.

The nature of the public-records request was to examine correspondence between the sponsors, the Ohio Department of Education, and the schools regarding compliance, reviews by the sponsors, governance and overall school performance.

In particular, the two sponsors are responsible for providing oversight and ensuring legal compliance with a chain of 17 schools that operate under the names Horizon Science Academy and Noble Academy and are affiliated with the management firm Concept Schools, based in Chicago.

These schools, which are associated with the Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen, have been the subject of controversy for years. For example, three of the Ohio schools in the Gulen chain were the targets of an FBI raid in 2014, and that investigation appears to be ongoing.

On a national level, the Gulen schools are known for their practice of hiring Turkish nationals to fill teaching positions at some of their schools. One investigation found that in Ohio alone, 657 H-1B visa applications, which are designed to enable the temporary use of skilled workers, were filed by the management organization in a 15-year period. In theory, every guest international teacher replaces a qualified American teacher, all at taxpayer expense.

In the area of management and governance, there are concerns, as the Akron Beacon-Journal reported earlier, that these “schools are run almost exclusively by persons of Turkish heritage, some of whom are not U.S. citizens,” of money transfers to individuals in Istanbul, Turkey, and other issues, some of which appeared in state audits. Additional questions involve a foundation with ties to the chain for its practice of offering trips to Turkey for public officials. Former Ohio Speaker Cliff Rosenberger was one individual awarded all-expense-paid travel prior to his accession to the House leadership.

The ever-developing ECOT scandal has validated the need for more-active oversight of all state charter schools, and the Horizon-Noble Gulen chain is a clear example of additional monitoring that must be performed by the state and the two authorizers, which receive millions in state tax dollars for such purposes.

An extended period of time has elapsed since the Ohio Coalition requested the public records. On June 4, the Buckeye Community Hope Foundation did respond through an attorney. “The Buckeye Community Hope Foundation is not a public entity subject to public records,” was part of its reply to Phillis. As of this writing, there has been silence from the two public entities. This is unacceptable and violates the spirit and the letter of the statute.

As the ECOT debacle has shown, there is a major problem with the management and governance of Ohio charter schools, and the public has a right to know more about questions surrounding one of the national charter school chains operating in Ohio.

For years, the American Society of News Editors has sponsored an event called Sunshine Week in honor of the public’s right to know about their government. Schools are a basic part of our system of self-governance. We cannot allow this public-records request to be ignored by those who otherwise benefit from the receipt of public funds.

“Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,” Louis Brandeis once said. Ohio citizens need to insist that the Public Records Act must be the vehicle to provide answers to lingering questions about how our tax money is expended for what should be a proper public purpose.

http://www.dispatch.com/opinion/20180608/denis-smith-charter-schools-are-withholding-public-records

The charter billionaires pulled out all the stops to push their candidate Antonio Villaraigosa into the governor’s runoff last week, and lost.

Charter school supporters are deciding where to direct their considerable resources after pouring money into the California governor primary to support a longtime ally who failed to move on to November’s election.

The fallout may signal future uncertainty for the school choice movement in a state with some of the most robust charter school laws in the United States.

The front-runner for governor, Democrat Gavin Newsom, could hamper or threaten the progress of charters — privately run schools that use public money and have divided parents and politicians. He has mostly emphasized his support of traditional public schools and called for more charter school accountability.

Newsom’s campaign said it would seek to temporarily halt charter school openings to consider transparency issues but that “successful” charters would thrive under his leadership. In the June 5 race, he beat out former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a key ally of the California Charter Schools Association.

The powerful organization and its big-name donors, including Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Walmart heir Alice Walton, gave nearly $23 million to support Villaraigosa, who finished behind Newsom and Republican businessman John Cox.

Now, the group said it’s working on a new strategy that could include supporting Newsom or Cox, despite the Republican’s endorsement from President Donald Trump. The heavily blue state is helping lead a national resistance to his administration. The charter Advocates are in a tight spot after running attack ads against both candidates who advanced to the general election.

So look who is standing on principle! The billionaires will either try to buy the friendship of Newsom, with a handsome cash prize, or they will throw in their lot with Trump-loving Cox.

What do they believe in?

The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, which oversees the international tests called PISA, plans to start testing five-year-olds.

Early childhood education experts at DEY (Defending the Early Years) Are appalled. They have heard that several states have volunteered to participate in pilot testing, but secrecy is so tight that they don’t know which states they are. If you work in a state education department, please let us know if your state is one of them.

Reader Laura Chapman decided to research how this monstrous idea got off the ground. Here is her Research:

“The new International Early Learning and Child Well-being study (IELS)- dubbed “Baby PISA” will focus on testing 5 year-olds on narrow academic skills achievement. But…

If you go to the links beyond this headline, you will see a more complete description of the tests and surveys that are part of the package. This is not to say that I endorse the internationalization of tests for five-year olds and related surveys of parents and staff. I do not. The computer interface is a bummer. These tests and surveys will end with international stack rankings, just like everything else from OECD. Here is more information about the tests in the International Early Learning Study (IELS), officially administered in the US by the National Center of Education Statistics https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/iels/study_components.asp

Because this blog post indicates there was no consultation with experts from the US, I have spent the afternoon poking around to find more information. The short story is this: Around 2001, OECD enlisted high profile US experts in the early stages of work on early childhood, but for research not clearly related to test development. By 2015, only two US experts were listed as contributors to the project and the tests were being field tested–a fact announced in one session of an OECD conference titled: “Data Development for Measuring Quality in Early Childhood and Education and Care: International ECEC Staff Survey and International Survey of Early Child Outcomes” (p. 29). https://www.oecd.org/leed-forum/activities/Brochure-fpld2015-web.pdf

In 2015, the contact person for the tests was Arno Engel, a consultant for OECD’s Directorate for Education and Skills. Engel was also an Associate Lecturer with the University of Bayreuth, Germany. At that time six other scholars, were also working for OCED on early childhood research and assessments. Brief bios are here, none based in the US. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/international-early-learning-and-child-well-being-study.htm

This OECD project seems to have originated in 1998-99 with a series of commissioned papers under the title, Starting Strong, with the first publication in 2001. That publication summarized “themes” in papers from 12 OECD countries—Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/earlychildhoodeducationandcare.htm

I found the 2001 “Starting Strong” report from the United States, with “themes” that suggest the authors could not have imagined the current computer-based tests. Here are the topics (themes) and contributors.

I – DEFINITIONS, CONTEXT, AND PROVISION
Introduction and Definitions, Policy and Program Context, Overview of Current Provision—Sheila B. Kamerman: Compton Foundation Centennial Professor for the Prevention of Children, Youth, and Family Problems at the Columbia University School of Social Work, Co-Director of the Cross-National Studies Research Program at the School, and Director of the Columbia University Institute for Child and Family Policy and Shirley Gatenio a PhD candidate and Adjunct Lecturer at the Columbia University School of Social Work

II – POLICY CONCERNS
Quality—Debby Cryer: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Access to ECEC Programs—Edna Ranck: Director of public policy and research for National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, early education historian and independent consultant for early childhood

Regulatory Policy and Staffing—Gwen G. Morgan: Coordinator of the Advanced Management seminars for Day Care Directors, Chair of the Social Policy Committee of the Day Care Council of America.

Program Content and Implementation—Lilian Katz: Professor of Early Childhood Education, Director of ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Family Engagement and Support—Barbara T. Bowman: Erikson Institute (a graduate school based in Chicago specializing in studies of child development, named for Erik Erikson developmental psychologist).

Funding Issues—Steve Barnett & Len Masse: Both from the Center for Early Education at Rutgers, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey.

Evaluation and Research—Kristin Moore: Social psychologist with Child Trends and
Jerry West, National Center for Education Statistics

Noteworthy innovations—Victoria Fu: Professor of human development, College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, Virginia Tech; co-author Teaching as Inquiry: Rethinking Curriculum in Early Childhood Education

III – CONCLUDING ASSESSMENTS

General shifts in ECEC policy—Richard M. Clifford: Senior scientist emeritus at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (No bio in original report).

Future trends Moncrieff Cochran—Professor Emeritus in Human Development in the College of Human Ecology at Cornell University. (No bio in original report).

Issues for further investigation—Sharon Llynn Kagan, Virginia and Leonard Marx Professor of Early Childhood and Family Policy, Co-Director of the National Center for Children and Families at Teachers College, Columbia University, and Professor Adjunct at Yale University’s Child Study Center

Click to access 27856788.pdf

In the 2015 paper, Starting Strong IV: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, I found only two contributors from the United States. They were Sharon Lynn Kagen: who contributed to the first report and Mr. Steven Hicks: a Nationally Board Certified Teacher in Early Childhood and former Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Early Learning in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education (Obama Administration). He is now Assistant State Superintendent for the Division of Early Childhood Development at the Maryland State Department of Education.
https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/starting-strong-iv_9789264233515-en#page1

In the most recent report, Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care (189 pages), I found not a single contributor from the United States. The absence of any contributor was conspicuous.

By 2017, NCES had outsourced the US testing contract to Westat, an employee-owned statistical services corporation in Rockville, Maryland. The NCES description of this IELS project says: “ an international consortium was contracted to develop the study measures and fine tune the study design…” but there is no information about that “consortium.”

I am trying to get a list of the members of that international consortium and the names of the experts who were enlisted to “fine tune the study design.” Perhaps someone reading this blog knows who these unpublicized members are. It is no wonder that the test looks as if it came from nowhere known to current workers in early childhood education. The test will produce national rankings and these will make headlines even if the sample sizes are small (and they are).

It is no secret that the DeVos family controls state education policy in Michigan. As Betsy DeVos has acknowledged, when they make campaign contributions, they expect to see the changes they want.

Since DeVos took control, education in Michigan has been in decline. The state has hundreds of charter schools. Accountability is minimal. DeVos likes it that way. Michigan is the only state where 80% of charters operate for profit. That means less money for instruction because investors come first in a for-profit business.

Last year, the New York Times Magazine ran a very good article about the charter mess in Michigan. It points out that 70% of the charters are in the bottom half of state performance. So much for “saving poor kids from failing schools,” more like privatizing schools for profit without regard to the kids.

“The results have been stark. The 2016 report by the Education Trust-Midwest noted:

Michigan’s K-12 system is among the weakest in the country and getting worse. In little more than a decade, Michigan has gone from being a fairly average state in elementary reading and math achievement to the bottom 10 states. It’s a devastating fall. Indeed, new national assessment data suggest Michigan is witnessing systemic decline across the K-12 spectrum. White, black, brown, higher-income, low-income — it doesn’t matter who they are or where they live.

You will not be surprised to learn that Michigan is systematically underinvesting in its school. Choice is a replacement for adequate funding.

You will also not be surprised to learn that Michigan has a major teacher shortage.

New teachers don’t want to teach in Michigan.

This is why Betsy DeVos, when asked about her home state of Michigan, changes the subject to Florida.

Reed Hastings is a tech entrepreneur, a billionaire, and founder of Netflix. He is determined  to replace public schools with charter schools. He served for a time as president of the state board of education in California. He has donated millions of dollars to the California Charter Schools Association. He was a founder of Rocketship, the charter that places poor kids in front of computers for hours each day and hires TFA to teach them in large classes, but skips the arts. He funds campaigns of charter champions like Nick Melvoin. He recently funded Antonio Villaraigosa for Governor and Marshall Tuck for State Superintendent of Instruction, both of them are part of the charter cabal.

He famously declared his opposition to the very existence of elected school boards.

Why does Reed Hastings hate public schools? Read the linked article and see if you can answer these questions.

Is it because he loves disruption? Does he hate democracy? Does he think schools are akin to tech start ups?

What do you think?