Archives for category: Education Industry

 

The Michigan House passed a bill to let the charter sector—including for-profit charters and cyber charters—share in millage revenues. Voters no doubt think they are underwriting their local community public schools, but they will be paying for the privately managed charters if the State Senate agrees.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2018/01/18/michigan-legislation-millage-charter-schools/1045504001/

Michigan charters are unusual in that they operate with little accountability. Some 80% of the state’s charters operate for profit.

In recent years, with the spread of charters, Michigan’s ranking on NAEP has fallen from the middle of the national rankings to near the bottom.

Michigan believes in investing in failure. Results don’t matter.

 

 

Readers of this blog are familiar with the story of ECOT, the mammoth virtual charter school in Ohio. It made over $1 Billion for the entrepreneur who founded it. But it seems to be slipping rapidly down the drain hole.

Mother Jones tells the story here in graphic detail. 

“Now, with ECOT imploding, some state politicians have floated the idea that Lager, who has made millions in profits off the school and come a long way from the Waffle House, should be personally held responsible for paying back some of the $80 million owed to the state. But while the coming days will reveal if the political will or mechanisms exist to make this happen, it’s unclear how he might ever be held accountable—because the real scandal is that ECOT grew up legally, with the support of state politicians and national GOP power brokers, and that in many ways it has served as a model for schools like it across the country. Now, the same districts ECOT pulled its funds from are scrambling to find a way to take in its former students, and Ohio is facing a reckoning, after nearly two decades when the state became one of the country’s freest laboratories for pro-charter policies. “Why did it take a generation and a half of kids to go through this crappy system for us to do something about it,” Stephen Dyer, a former Ohio state representative asked me in exasperation in December. “The reason is because a lot of money came in.”

 

I applaud those who defect or dissent from received wisdom. I know from personal experience that it is especially hard to dissent when it means stepping off a money train and leaving behind your friends.

Paul Emerich was a true believer in “personalized learning.” On this Blog, the term is translated to mean “depersonalized learning.”

Peter Greene is not sure whether to congratulate him for waking up or to chastise him for his cluelessness. 

Greene writes:

“I’ve been trying to understand why this piece, which confirms so much of what many of us have said, and does so from the perspective of someone who’s been there– why does this rub me the wrong way. The best explanation is this: Emerich calls himself naive, but I think he’s letting himself off easy. I don’t think he’s so much naive as arrogant, and the same arrogance that was displayed in heading off to charter techno-teaching without doing any due diligence is the same arrogance that leads him to make this Momentous Announcement of things that he has personally discovered, as if a few thousand other folks hadn’t already caught on years and years ago.

“I appreciate his point of view, and his confirmation that charter school companies are businesses, not schools, and that personalized learning via computer is a sham and a fraud, and I’m happy that people are sharing this like crazy. But dammit– if more of these tech folks would do their damn homework, we wouldn’t have to keep learning the same old lessons over and over, and we wouldn’t keep subjecting live human children to foolishness that we already know is foolishness. In the meantime, he’s now the Academic Chair at the high-end private Latin School of Chicago. I guess time will tell what lessons he actually learned from his stay in Silicon Valley.”

I’m willing to be charitable and welcome Paul to the Club of Reformed True Believers.

This article was written in 2015 but it is as timely today as it was then. Maybe more timely, because in 2015, who would have dreamed that Betsy DeVos would soon be U.S. Secretary of Education?

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a bill mill founded in 1973 and funded by the Koch Brothers, the DeVos family, and major corporations. It operates secretively. It does not issue press releases. It churns out model laws that state legislators introduce into their own states to deregulate business and privatize the public sector for profit. It is a stealth political campaign to privatize everything for profit while classified by the IRS as a charity. Its members include one of every four state legislators in the nation. It’s corporate members include some of the nation’s pre-eminent businesses.

One of the major targets of ALEC is public education, because it is public. ALEC has model legislation for charter schools, vouchers, and cybercharters. It has Model legislation to eliminate collective bargaining and unions. It has Model legislation to lower standards for teachers and deregulate entry into teaching.

To learn more about ALEC, watch DeVos and read the website ALEC Exposed.

Alecexposed.com

Circulate this post and the links to everyone you know.

The Waltons are a singular American family. Not exactly like you or me, to be sure. They are, according to Forbes, the richest family in America, with a net worth of $140 billion or more.

They were recently praised by Trump for raising the minimum wage for their 1 million workers to $11 an hour. On the same day, however, they closed down 63 Sam’s Club warehouse stores, putting more than 11,000 people out of work without notice.

I wish any member of the Walton family would try to live for a month on only $11 an hour wages. However, since they are all heirs to their great fortune, it’s likely that none ever held a paying job where they had to show up every day.

Here is an article about them that appeared on the Walton Foundation blog.

While other billionaires have pledged to give away most of their money to charity, the Waltons decline to join them. They know money is power. Also, it means you never have to go to work.

Their primary takeover target is education.

“The largest chunk of the foundation’s retooled and accelerated giving plan — $1 billion over the next five years — will go to education. While family members still evangelize about the benefits of “school choice” for struggling families, they’ve fought enough battles over the past two decades to determine that simply providing parents a slate of options among traditional public schools, charter schools, and private institutions isn’t enough to improve student achievement.

“For school choice to succeed, the Waltons concluded, the foundation has to move beyond making start-up grants for charters and focus more on building a constituency of supporters in local school districts.”

Typically, that means they have to actually buy elections, although the article doesn’t put it quire like that.

Their passion is charter schools. This is a handy way to bust unions and advance the privatization of public education. The Waltons claim to have started one of every charter schools in the U.S.

“Some critics have complained that the Waltons have donated a relatively small percentage of their enormous wealth to charity. Still, their giving is so substantial in terms of raw dollars that other critics contend it gives them too much influence over public policy. In response, the family has sought safe havens: school districts where there are plenty of skilled teachers and administrators excited about new educational models. In those places, the foundation has courted local officials open to charter schools operating alongside traditional neighborhood schools.

“The new approach means the foundation will exit cities where charters have been a tough sell, including Phoenix, Chicago, and Albany, N.Y. Its roster of 13 target areas now includes New Orleans, Oakland, and San Antonio, where charters are seen as ripe for success.”

See, they just sit around and decide how to privatize the public schools in your community. Arkansas is one of the poorest states in the nation. Couldn’t they just concentrate on raising up the families in their own backyard?

 

Roxana Marachi writes about two proposals before the California State Board of Education today. Maybe the decision has already been made.

Question: Is it true that “anyone can open a charter school in California?”

Does it matter if the proposal comes from an organization that has previously failed?

Does it matter that no one knows who will actually run the school?

Do California taxpayers care how their money is spent?

Does the State Board of Educatuon have any quality standards?

Can convicted felons open charters?

Can maniacal parents home school their children and chain them to their beds?

Does California have any standards?

Or is it Betsy DeVos’ Dream State?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Warning to parents in the Hudson Valley, New York.

Eva Moskowitz is opening a no-excuses Charter School in your neighborhood.

https://thehudsonvalleysuccessacademy.com/

Protect your children against harsh discipline.

Defend your public schools against raids on their funding.

 

 

 

Betsy DeVos speaks only to guaranteed-friendly audiences, so she spoke at AEI, a think tank subsidized by her foundation.

Peter Greene reviews her speech here. 

What has she learned?

She has learned that she is always right.

She has learned that ignorance is bliss.

She has learned that all her biases are revealed Truth.

She will do nothing to dislodge the Common Core.

She says, “If the purpose of public education is to educate the public, then it should… not… matter what word comes before school.

Greene responds:

“This, for my money, is an even dumber statement than the infamous grizzly comment. If the word before “school” is “for-profit” or “flat earth” or “Aryan race” or– well, good lord, the list is endless. Does she really mean to suggest that as long as it’s some kind of school, we’re good…”

”First, it takes a special combination of ignorance and hubris to imagine that you are setting a new standard for calling to put students first, as if none of the millions of people who have worked in education never once thought, “You know, I’d rather like to make students my main focus here.” While DeVos has scrubbed a lot of the language that used to be her bread and butter– US schools are so bad they couldn’t get worse, and the whole government school system is just a scam created by unions to get fat checks for so-called teachers who just want to do nothing all day– this line shows some of the old DeVos creeping through.

“Second, let’s think about this. Because the short form of the DeVosian position is, “Here at the Department of Education, we will put students first by doing nothing.” That’s a neat trick, but it goes with that DeVosian disconnect in which the secretary remains unable to imagine a situation where her department would step in and say, “No, you can’t do that” to any school. Does she think that any state or federal agency should have stepped in and said, “No, Mr. Turpin, you cannot open a school where the curriculum is to chain your children in the basement without food and water.” And if the answer is no, as it seems to be, then how does she think this works? If her beloved marketplace is free to be overrun by fraudsters, scam artists, and cheats, how exactly are parents empowered?”

 

I posted this law review article in 2015. It remains one of my favorites. Her argument is straightforward. Abandoning the public school system is an assault on the rights of most children, especially the most vulnerable.

I wrote when I posted it nearly three years ago:

Osamudia R. James is a law professor at the University of Miami School of Law. She is a scholar of race and equity. She has written a scholarly article that was published in the Iowa Law Review titled “Opt-Out Education: School Choice as Racial Subordination.” I hope that readers of this blog will take the time to read it. It is an important legal analysis of the social inequities caused by school choice.

As more children are induced to leave the public school system, the public schools are less able to provide a decent education for those who remain behind. Many of those who leave will attend charter schools and voucher schools that are no better and possibly worse than the public school they abandoned. The harm done to children by this strategy is powerful, and the harm done to society is incalculable.

James advocates for limitations on school choice “to prevent the disastrous social consequences–the abandonment of the public school system, to particularly deleterious consequence for poor and minority schoolchildren and their families–that occur as the collective result of individual, albeit rational, decisions. I also advocate for limitations on school choice in an attempt to encourage individuals to consider their obligations to children not their own, but part of their community all the same….The actual impact of school choice cannot be ignored. Given the radicalized realities of the current education system, choice is not ultimately used to broaden options or agency for minority parents. Rather, school choice is used to sanitize inequality in the school system; given sufficient choices, the state and its residents are exempted from addressing the sources of unequal educational opportunities for poor and minority students. States promote agency even as the subjects supposedly exercising that agency are disabled. Experience makes clear that school choice simply should not form an integral or foundational aspect of education reform policy. Rather, the focus should be on improving public schooling for all students such that all members of society can exercise genuine agency, initially facilitated by quality primary and secondary education. Ultimately, improving public education begins with preventing its abandonment.

 

Alan Singer reviews the New York Times list of failed corporate reformers to replace Carmen Farina.

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2018/1/18/1733788/-Times-Endorses-Anti-Fari-a-Candidates-for-NYC-School-Chancellor-Alan-Singer-on-the-Daily-Kos

John King? Chased out of New York State.

Jaime Aquino? In charge of the iPad disaster in Los Angeles.

John White? Tool of rightwing former Governor Bobby Jindal.

Has beens.

Hey, Bill, find someone who believes in public schools.