Archives for category: Education Industry

Mercedes Schneider comments on the happy convergence of Betsy DeVos and the notorious anti-government ALEC. Their pro-corporate, profiteering views converge.

In Her Element: US Ed Sec Betsy DeVos to be ALEC Guest Speaker

Schneider knows ALEC well, having written about it in the past. ALEC writes model legislation for states that want to get rid of public schools, teachers’ rights, unions, gun control, and any regulation that interferes with corporate profits.

To learn more about ALEC, go to ALEC Exposed.

Why do so many Tepublicans hate public schools? They know that funding for education is a zero-sum game. More money for privately-run charters and vouchers means less money for public schools.

Today, Governor Rick Scott of Florida signed into law a bill that transfers more money away from public schools to the privately-run schools.

The charter industry in Florida has been riddled with scandals and frauds. The for-profit charter industry is making money.

In the article cited, Valerie Strauss explains the legislation and the harm it will do to the public schools attended by the great majority of Florida’s students.

Why are Republicans like Rick Scott determined to shift money from public schools to private schools?

It is a scam. Shameful.

The Network for Public Education invites you to contact your local PBS station to protest the one-sided three-hour special “School Inc.” The letter in the link tells you how to contact your PBS affiliate.

We urge two courses of action, for the sake of balance. Please request that they air my 10-minute response which was filmed by the NYC affiliate of PBS. Please urge them to show “Backpack Full of Cash,” made by award-winning Stone Lantern Productions; it tells the story of the corporate assault on public schools.

That is 70 minutes of time, certainly not equal time. PBS, in the interests of fairness, should identify and run three hours of documentaries that show an accurate picture of the accomplishments and challenges of public schools.

PBS is running a three-hour special that attacks public schools and celebrates privatization. “School Inc” claims that public schools are not “innovative,” but not one of its free-market examples are innovative in any way, other than that they are run by private corporations, many for profit. The narrator and creator of this series is the late Andrew Coulson, a libertarian who believed in free-market education.

I watched all three hours of the program twice, preparing for a 10-minute interview at WNET, the New York City affiliate of PBS. I learned that the three foundations that funded the program are libertarian supporters of vouchers. The program is pro-privatization propaganda. At no point does Coulson interview anyone who disagrees with him. He lauds the free-market reforms in Chile and Sweden, which reputable scholars have found wanting. Chile is one of the most segregated school systems in the world, and Sweden’s scores on international tests have fallen since the introduction of Choice and for-profit schooling.

This program leads the way in promoting the DeVos agenda of free-market education.

Please send your email. Be heard.

Michael Hynes is superintendent of the Patchogue-Medford public schools on Long Island in NewNew York.

He writes:

“Is hypernormalisation even a word? I didn’t believe so until recently. According to Wikipedia, (insert sarcasm), “The term … is taken from Alexei Yurchak’s 2006 book Everything was Forever, Until it was No More: The Last Soviet Generation, about the paradoxes of life in the Soviet Union, where the author explains, “Everyone knew the system was failing, but as no one could imagine any alternative to the status quo, politicians and citizens were resigned to maintaining a pretense of a functioning society. Over time, this delusion became a self-fulfilling prophecy and the “fakeness” was accepted by everyone as real”, an effect that Yurchak dubbed hypernormalisation.

“British filmmaker Adam Curtis took the concept beyond the Soviet reference, in his award-nominated documentary, HyperNormalisation,, about how governments, financiers, and technological gurus have given up on the complex “real world” and built a “fake world,” run by corporations and kept stable by politicians.

“Wow, sound familiar? This is precisely what is taking place in the United States at the present moment, most notably in my world of public education.

“The hypernormalisation of public education has been slowly creeping its way into our schools, becoming the official party line with the federal mandate of testing our children to death with No Child Left Behind in 2001. This legislation required that all grades 3-8 students are tested every year in English Language Arts and mathematics. The later incarnations of NCLB have only upped the testing ante, by making high test scores such a priority that a school’s very existence depends on making the mark.

“This means that what most of us consider “normal” is no longer normal. School days filled with reading, writing, math, science, social studies, playing outside, working out problems with friends, art, music, taking an occasional trip, are no longer “normal.”

“If we compared our public school experience from that of twenty-five years ago against the “new normal,” we witness children losing the ability to play in the classroom (where true learning takes place), the significant decline of recess and a loss of social and emotional experiences that all children benefit from.

“This “new normal” is teach less and test more. And because of the high stakes attached to these tests, schools are forced to focus on academic outcomes at the expense of a child’s social and emotional growth.

“Under this hypernormalized model, teachers now rank and sort children based on a proficiency model instead of how much growth each individual child may show.

“So don’t celebrate too soon New York parents, educators and policy makers. Just because the Board of Regents recently trimmed time off of the 3-8 English Language Arts and mathematics state tests from six days to four, the “new normal” hasn’t budged.

“As long as the stakes attached to the tests remain as high as they are, then our schools will remain driven by only two outcomes: ELA and mathematics state test scores instead of attaining what’s most important: enlightening the whole child to maximize their true talents and potential.

“I recognize that the obstacles in achieving a new healthy normal are huge, as our politicians at the state and federal level, along with so-called reformers and business opportunists who have been reaping tremendous financial profits from this system, continue to praise and fund a high stakes test-driven school model.

“But make no mistake: this “new normal” is taking an unacceptable toll on our children; focusing on the whole child, regardless of scores, is what desperately needs to become our new normal.”

Michael J. Hynes, Ed.D.
Superintendent of Schools
Patchogue-Medford Schools
241 South Ocean Ave.
Patchogue, NY 11772

@PMSchoolsSupe or @Mikehynes5

Let the pointless torture continue!

New York’s Board of Regents has agreed to reduce the time devoted to state tests from three days for each subject (math and ELA) to two days for each subject.

Pray tell, why does it take two days of testing to determine how students are doing in basic subjects?

Will results be returned in August or September, as is now customary, when students have a different teacher?

Will students and teachers be allowed to discuss the questions that students got wrong?

Will the tests continue to lack any diagnostic value?

Or will the tests continue to be useless, other than as a means of ranking students, teachers, and schools?

As for those businessmen and financiers who love the tests and want every child tested with high stakes, I invite them to take the eighth grade math tests and publish their scores. Until they do, ignore them. They are bought and paid for by the privatization industry, which loves to raise standards that even they can’t meet. Designed to run down our public schools and our democracy.

Wayne Gersen explains here why billionaires are willing to spend millions of dollars to privatize public schools and to keep their taxes low.

Education is the most expensive item in every state’s budget. Teachers are the most expensive component in the budget of public schools. Reduce the number of teachers, reduce costs, get rid of senior teachers, and no new taxes.

The trick for the billionaires is to fool voters who earn $50,000 a year into believing cutting taxes is good for them, and that they share common ground with the billionaires.

Billionaires don’t care about public schools, don’t worry about class sizes, don’t care if kids are taught by machines, because their children don’t go to public schools.

Clever. Mean. Duplicitous.

Peter Greene read Betsy DeVos’s speech to the big privatization conference in D.C. and he figured out the DeVos doctrine.

Remember the song from “Oklahoma,” about “the farmers and the ranchers can be friends?” Well, DeVos assured her allies in the privatization movement that voucher-lovers and charter-lovers are on the same team. They both want the money that now goes to public schools!

Greene writes:

“The rise of Betsy DeVos opened up some schisms in the education reformster world, including, notably, voucher fans versus charter fans. Charter fans have been distrustful, even openly resistant to DeVos and whatever agenda she is drifting toward. Charter schools and voucher schools are natural competitors, with vouchers having a distinct edge with the private religious school market. But I think it may be more important that they compete in different ways.

“To grossly oversimplify, the charter model is to attach itself to the public school system, coopting the public system’s financial systems but redirecting public monies to private schools. The voucher model is to keep the public funding from ever entering the public system at all. Charters want to slip the money out of the bank, but vouchers want to grab the armored cars delivering it. Charters flirt with the lottery winner so he’ll buy them a nice dinner, and vouchers mug him before he ever gets to the restaurant. Charters fake their family ties so they can wrangle an invite to Thanksgiving

“So it represents a significant shift that DeVos has delivered a speech loaded with a giant olive branch to charter supporters…

“DeVos holds up Florida as an example of robust choice and its awesome results. Including Pitbull’s school. Florida, land charter scam artists and blatantly racist school policy and slavish devotion to the Big Standardized Test and public schools deliberately gutted in order to make choice look good. Florida is the DeVosian model. It may not do much for actual education, but at least people are free to make money.

“The final chorus of this hymn to privatization is to declare that “education is not a zero-sum game.” But of course as currently conceived, it is exactly that. Among the issues that DeVos doesn’t address is the costliness of running multiple parallel school systems with the same (often inadequate) funds you previously used to run a single system. As long as every taxpayer dollar spent to send a student to a private charter or voucher school is a dollar taken away from the public system, then a zero-sum game is exactly what we have.

“The DeVos Doctrine presented here includes several of her emerging greatest hits, such as the idea that parents choosing a school is a pure exercise of democracy. It is not. There is nothing democratic about requiring the taxpaying public to foot the bill for your personal private choice.”

The National Education Policy Center specializes in reviewing think tank reports, few of which are peer-reviewed. Many think tanks are advocacy organizations that use pseudo-scholarship to promote policy goals.

NEPC’s latest review gives a thumbs down to a report that advises on ways to eliminate democratic control of public schools. None of its so-called “reforms” have worked in practice, and the goal itself is unworthy:

BOULDER, CO (June 13, 2017) – A recent report offers a how-to guide for reform advocates interested in removing communities’ democratic control over their schools. The report explains how these reformers can influence states to use the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Title I school improvement funds to support a specific set of reforms: charter schools, state-initiated turnarounds, and appointment of an individual with full authority over districts or schools.

Leveraging ESSA to Support Quality-School Growth was reviewed by Gail L. Sunderman of the University of Maryland.

While the report acknowledges that there is limited research evidence on the effectiveness of these reforms as school improvement strategies, it uses a few exceptional cases to explain how advocates seeking to influence the development of state ESSA plans can nevertheless push them forward.

As Sunderman’s review explains, the report omits research that would shed light on the models, and it fails to take into account the opportunity costs of pursuing one set of policies over another. It also relies on test score outcomes as the sole measure of success, thus ignoring other impacts these strategies may have on students and their local communities or the local school systems where they occur. Finally, and as noted above, support for the effectiveness of these approaches is simply too limited to present them as promising school improvement strategies.

For these reasons, concludes Sunderman, policymakers, educators and state education administrators should be wary of relying on this report to guide them as they develop their state improvement plans and consider potential strategies for assisting low-performing schools and districts.

Find the review by Gail L. Sunderman at:
http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-ESSA-accountability

Find Leveraging ESSA to Support Quality-School Growth, by Nelson Smith and Brandon Wright, published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Education Cities, at:
https://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/03.30 – Leveraging ESSA To Support Quality-School Growth_0.pdf

Valerie Strauss contacted PBS to ask why the public TV Network ran a one-sided three-hour documentary that lambastes public schools and celebrates vouchers, charters, and for-profit schools.

PBS gave its response.

It likes to air diverse views (clearly without fact-checking).

It pays no attention to where the money comes from, even it is dark money funneled through Donors Trust, which bundles contributions from the Koch brothers and DeVos foundations.

Since PBS welcomes diverse views, be sure to contact your local public television station and urge them to run my rebuttal, which aired on WNET, the NYC PBS station.

Since PBS likes diverse views, urge them to air “Backpack Full of Cash,” produced by award-winning Stone Lantern Films, who’s four-part series, “School,” was aired on PBS in 2000. “Backpack” demonstrates the vicious corporate assault on public schools and the harm done to children by the privatization movement.

Don’t agonize, organize.

I wish that everyone who sees the PBS program “School Inc.”–which airs nationally this month–knew who was funding this error-ridden attack on public education.

Please watch my 10-minute interview with New York City’s PBS affiliate, WNET, where I gave a concise response to this meretricious three-hour program. It airs locally, not nationally.


Public education today faces an existential crisis. Over the past two decades, the movement to transfer public money to private organizations has expanded rapidly. The George W. Bush administration first wrote into federal law the proposal that privately managed charter schools were a remedy for low-scoring public schools, even though no such evidence existed. The Obama administration provided hundreds of millions each year to charter schools, under the control of private boards. Now, the Trump administration, under the leadership of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, wants to expand privatization to include vouchers, virtual schools, cyberschools, homeschooling, and every other possible alternative to public education. DeVos has said that public education is a “dead end,” and that “government sucks.”

DeVos’s agenda finds a ready audience in the majority of states now controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. Most states already have some form of voucher program that allow students to use public money to enroll in private and religious schools, even when their own state constitution prohibits it. The Republicans have skirted their own constitutions by asserting that the public money goes to the family, not the private or religious school. The longstanding tradition of separating church and state in K-12 education is crumbling. And Betsy DeVos can testify with a straight face that she will enforce federal law to “schools that receive federal funding,” because voucher schools allegedly do not receive the money, just the family that chooses religious schools.

Advocates of the privatization movement like DeVos claim that nonpublic schools will “save poor children from failing public schools,” but independent researchers have recently concurred that vouchers actually have had a negative effect on students in the District of Columbia, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio. Charters, at best, have a mixed record, and many are known for excluding children with disabilities and English language learners and for pushing out students who are troublesome.

This is a time when honest, nonpartisan reporting is needed to inform the American public.

But this month the Public Broadcasting System is broadcasting a “documentary” that tells a one-sided story, the story that Betsy DeVos herself would tell, based on the work of free-market advocate Andrew Coulson. Author of “Market Education,” Coulson narrates “School, Inc., “ a three-hour program, which airs this month nationwide in three weekly broadcasts on PBS.

Uninformed viewers who see this very slickly produced program will learn about the glories of unregulated schooling, for-profit schools, teachers selling their lessons to students on the Internet. They will learn about the “success” of the free market in schooling in Chile, Sweden, and New Orleans. They will hear about the miraculous charter schools across America, and how public school officials selfishly refuse to encourage the transfer of public funds to private institutions. They will see a glowing portrait of South Korea, where students compete to get the highest possible scores on a college entry test that will define the rest of their lives and where families gladly pay for afterschool tutoring programs and online lessons to boost test scores. They will hear that the free market is more innovative than public schools.

What they will not see or hear is the other side of the story. They will not hear scholars discuss the high levels of social segregation in Chile, nor will they learn that the students protesting the free-market schools in the streets are not all “Communists,” as Coulson suggests. They will not hear from scholars who blame Sweden’s choice system for the collapse of its international test scores. They will not see any reference to Finland, which far outperforms any other European nation on international tests yet has neither vouchers nor charter schools. They may not notice the absence of any students in wheelchairs or any other evidence of students with disabilities in the highly regarded KIPP charter schools. They will not learn that the acclaimed American Indian Model Charter Schools in Oakland does not enroll any American Indians, but has a student body that is 60% Asian American in a city where that group is 12.8% of the student population. Nor will they see any evidence of greater innovation in voucher schools or charter schools than in properly funded public schools.

Coulson has a nifty way of dismissing the fact that the free market system of schooling was imposed by the dictator Augusto Pinochet. He says that Hitler liked the Hollywood movie “It Happened One Night” (with Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable); should we stop showing or watching the movie? Is that a fair comparison? Pinochet was directly responsible for the free market system of schooling, including for-profit private schools. Hitler neither produced nor directed “It Happened One Night.” Thus does Coulson refer to criticism (like Sweden’s collapsing scores on international tests) and dismiss them as irrelevant.

I watched the documentary twice, preparing to be interviewed by Channel 13, and was repelled by the partisan nature of the presentation. I googled the funders and discovered that the lead funder is the Rose Mary and Jack Anderson Foundation, a very conservative foundation that is a major contributor to the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which advocates for vouchers. The Anderson Foundation is allied with Donors Trust, whose donors make contributions that cannot be traced to them. “Mother Jones” referred to this foundation as part of “the dark-money ATM of the conservative movement.” Other contributors to Donors Trust include the Koch brothers’ “Americans for Prosperity” and the Richard and Helen DeVos foundation.

The second major funder is the Prometheus Foundation. Its public filings with the IRS show that its largest grant ($2.5 million) went to the Ayn Rand Institute. The third listed funder of “School Inc.” is the Steve and Lana Hardy Foundation, which contributes to free-market libertarian think tanks.

In other words, this program is paid propaganda. It does not search for the truth. It does not present opposing points of view. It is an advertisement for the demolition of public education and for an unregulated free market in education. PBS might have aired a program that debates these issues, but “School Inc.” does not.

It is puzzling that PBS would accept millions of dollars for this lavish and one-sided production from a group of foundations with a singular devotion to the privatization of public services. The PBS decision to air this series is even stranger when you stop to consider that these kinds of anti-government political foundations are likely to advocate for the elimination of public funding for PBS. After all, in a free market of television, where there are so many choices available, why should the federal government pay for a television channel?