Archives for category: Education Industry

This comment came from a mother who attended the infamous meeting where State Commissioner John King announced his intention to have a dialogue with parents, then lectured the audience for over an hour, and interrupted those who disagreed with him. Having announced five such meetings, he canceled the other four, claiming that “special interests” had manipulated the parents.

This parent says she was there.

She writes:

“….I was at the Poughkeepsie Meeting. Sat in the front row, cause I wanted to look directly into the eyes of the man who has stolen the love of school from my 9 year old.

I am a mom, I have two boys (9 and 14) and we reside in the small community of Millbrook NY. No matter if the persons who did speak were teachers, they were most likely parents too….and I trust them to be surrogate parents to my children when they are in their care 6-7 hours a day.

We are a team.

So, I suggest that every parent start attending every BOE meeting and PTA/O meeting (as I have for the last 4 years, and that’s why I was at that meeting in Poughkeepsie) to show the local districts our support and encourage them to break free of the STATES hold on our children’s love of learning and their own love for teaching.

REVOLT…..great history lesson….lets stop talking about how teachers are scared for your Jobs…implementing the CC cause you have to…and lets NOT DO IT ANYMORE.

The claim from King was that local districts have some control…and I agree, so now we should show him!!!! Some of the problem is that not enough parents understand how much power we hold in the accountability dept. But, we are educating ourselves and in turn becoming more involved whether our districts want us there or NOT.

It’s time for WE THE PEOPLE…..Teachers and Parents TOGETHER….No excuses, we are just as much to blame for this mess as anyone else. Let’s listen to each other and lets take back the importance of educating our youth.

I am writing for King’s resignation. His disrespect for anyone to have a voice showed him to be the Dictator of his “Communistic Core” and I will not be silenced….this mama bear will fight for her cubs.”

Crack investigative journalist David Sirota takes a close look at the gangster tactics that billionaires are using in New York City, D.C, and Denver.

This article will be “unlocked” on its website for only 9 hours more.

Please read it NOW.

Consider subscribing to NSFWCORP, which specializes in investigative reporting.

 

Hostage-Taking In The Classroom

By David Sirota

Dispatch unlocked: Subscriber Chris E-A unlocked this and it will remain available until 9 hours from now.

Become a NSFWCORP Subscriber today.

Subscribers can login for access to all NSFWCORP content.

For all the hype about America’s renewed obsession with zombies, the walking dead have lost their status as the favored metaphor du jour. A quarter century after the Iran standoff and seven months after “Argo” won the Oscar for best picture, the preferred metonym is now the hostage, in all his metaphorically hogtied and blindfolded glory.

Over on the East Coast, for instance, Washington politicians and news bureaus are colluding on “Government Shutdown” – an epic multi-day television miniseries of political pirates, ransom demands and overwrought hostage cliches. Over on the Left Coast, Hollywood is set to capitalize on the zeitgeist with its own scripted look at piracy and hostages called “Captain Phillips.”

Meanwhile, few have noticed that off camera, the ascendant hostage meme has quietly transformed from insipid political shorthand and fleeting pop culture fad into the day-to-day governing ideology of the ultimate symbol of Americana: the schoolhouse.

In this standoff, the hostages are public school children. They are being held captive not by a rag tag bunch of Somali buccaneers nor by Tea Party loons with that distinctly wild-eyed serial killer look in their eyes. No, a generation of youngsters is being held instead by pinstriped corporate executives, buttoned-down foundation officers and the local school board officials those aristocrats buy and sell.

Reminiscent of Hans Gruber’s high-class crew, this smooth-talking team of bandits is armed with billions of dollars of “charitable” – and therefore tax-subsidized – cash from both brand-name corporate behemoths and individual plutocrats like Microsoft’s Bill Gates, insurance magnate Eli Broad, media titan Michael Bloomberg, Enron billionaire John Arnold and Wal-Mart’s Walton family. With school districts refusing to adequately fund their education systems, and with a tax code boosting the plutocrats’ anti-public-school activism, this rogues gallery is now calling the shots – and demanding ransom. If a community pays the ransom by letting these distant marauders do what they want to the local school, then the perpetrators won’t purposely harm any hostages, even though their policies may inadvertently maim a bunch. But if a community defies these moguls’ wishes, then open threats against the cute little hostages commence.

The commercial application of this extortion scheme is straightforward. In shock-doctrine-like fashion, the corporate community that typically lobbies against higher taxes to fund schools makes a business opportunity out of schools’ subsequent budget crises. Specifically, corporations offer cash to budget-strapped school districts, claiming they are motivated by an altruistic desire to help preserve educational services for the community. But the cash is often contingent on letting those corporations use the public school to advertise products to those kids. If education officials later realize it is a bad idea to turn schools into corporate advertising weapons aimed at captive child audiences, then – poof! – the hostages are harmed as the corporate funding vanishes.

Less straightforward but equally insidious is the concurrent extortion scheme run by politically motivated foundations. More interested in making local schools petri dishes for their half-baked “free market” experiments and their ideological crusades against unions, these foundations masquerade as apolitical charities, while using their vast tax-subsidized resources to strengthen the already outsized political power of their namesake benefactors.

Three of the best examples come from Washington, D.C., New York City and my home city of Denver, Colorado.

Washington, D.C.: “It’s Not a Democracy”

Thanks to the boom in lobbying and government contracting, the nation’s capital is no longer a town of middle-class bureaucrats – it is now one of the wealthiest places on Earth, and one of the planet’s most unequal cities. With the Beltway’s rich typically sending their kids to private havens like Sidwell Friends, the D.C. public school system ends up serving a disproportionately low-income student population, which means it needs a lot of money if it has any chance of succeeding. That’s because economic status is such an enormous factor in educational achievement and because successfully combating poverty’s deleterious effect on educational achievement requires extra resources for “wraparound” services. To help raise that capital, private foundations in recent years swooped in with resources.

It sounded great – suddenly, there seemed to be no need to raise taxes on the cash-bloated multinational corporations stationed in D.C. The celebrated philanthrocapitalists were in the nation’s capital to save the day! Except for one problem: the foundation money came with an implicit and then-unprecedented threat. Championing the punitive, unproven and often counterproductive pedagogical agenda of standardized testing, draconian school shutdowns, mass teacher firings and union-busting charter schools, the conservative foundations gave Washington, D.C. residents the hostage-taker’s ultimatum: if they and their democratically elected city councilors did not obediently submit to the corporate “reform” agenda of then-Chancellor Michelle Rhee, then there would be consequences. More specifically, if they ever removed Rhee from her public office, then the foundation money would be summarily withdrawn, and kids would be harmed.

Backed by these corporate heavies, Rhee told residents who were critical of her destructive and cheating-plagued term that when it comes to public education policy in her city, “It’s not a democracy.” The result of the hostage taking thuggery? As PBS Frontline reported, after Rhee’s tenure, Washington is “still among the worst in the nation and D.C.’s high school graduation rate dead last.” And yet while the hostages suffered, Rhee has been handsomely rewarded for her loyalty to the hostage takers, as the same plutocrats bequeathed her a high-paying job and a well-financed corporate front group all for herself.

New York: King Bloomberg’s Permanent Reign

In New York, a different but equally harsh hostage situation has been engineered in order to guarantee the permanent dominance of outgoing billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s agenda, even after Hizzoner leaves office. The billionaire media titan and his cronies want to cement his polarizing agenda of demonizing teachers and promoting union-busting charter schools, even though those schools often deliver worse results than traditional schools. As the Wall Street Journal reports (emphasis added):

The fundraising arm of the New York City public-school system brought in a record $47 million in pledges in the past year, a sign that donors want to extend the effects of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s policies past the end of his third term…

While the fund has paid for some traditional projects—such as grants for libraries and after-school programs—it has also quietly bankrolled potentially controversial pilots of new curriculum standards, teacher evaluations and the School of One, an experimental method of using technology to teach math.

Using private money instead of tax dollars enabled the mayor and chancellor, who were wrangling with the United Federation of Teachers in court and on the airwaves, to sidestep controversy while experimenting with new methods. But some critics say this process still cuts out public participation…

“It adds yet another layer of distance between open public decision-making processes and how policies are set in the district,” said Sarah Reckhow, an assistant professor in urban politics and education at Michigan State University.

“Experimenting with new methods” is Wall Street Journal-ese for anti-union aristocrats like Bloomberg using children as pawns in an ideological scheme to turn more of the public school system into union-free – and failing – charter schools.

If that wasn’t bad enough, get this: though the Journal notes that the Bloomberg-aligned fund finances programs in public schools, “is located inside Education Department headquarters, and the schools chancellor is its chairman,” its executives nonetheless refuse to release basic information about who is donating and what it is actually funding. In other words, inside a public school system already plagued by corporate cronyism and a grotesque revolving door culture, there exists a secret privately financed slush fund that is permitted to operate without any public scrutiny at all.

Slush fund officials defend this as an earnest commitment “to safeguarding donors’ privacy” – but such saccharine platitudes obscure bareknuckled political motivations. Basically, Bloomberg and his rich buddies don’t like the idea of local communities – especially in liberal pro-union New York City – having control over the city’s schools. Thus, they’ve make a two-fer opportunity out of the city’s inadequately funded public school system. Knowing city schools are already being held hostage by meager budgets, they make huge “charitable” donations to the public education system, but make the money contingent on a two-pronged ransom demand: 1) they insist their ideological agenda be followed regardless of whether it actually improves educational results and 2) they insist their specific funding priorities being implemented by the public school system but without any democratic input from the public that is supposed to be controlling that system.

Acquiesce and the hostages are helped. Ask questions and the child hostages are made to suffer.

Denver: Explicit Threats to Harm Kids

Before you can understand the education hostage-taking in the Mile High City, you have to understand that the Denver Public School system is enmeshed in a thick web of corruption. In fact, even calling it a web is wrong. The school system here (as I first learned when my wife ran for school board a few years ago) is more accurately described as being covered in a rancid blob of radical ideology and corporate “reform” propaganda – one that has delivered tragic academic results. This blob is so massive it is hard to know where the private sector stops and the public sector begins.

One way to see this blob is to just behold the absurd amounts of corporate and right-wing money that have been spent to buy the city’s recent school board elections. Though school board positions are unpaid, the typical Denver school elections now feature CEOs throwing $25,000 checks at candidates who pledge to suck ever-more public money out of public schools and plow it into the privately run charter school industry – the same industry that has an illustrious history of discriminating against children with special needs.

Another way to see this blob is to look at the school board’s breathtaking self-dealing and its rampant conflicts of interest. For example, its current president is paid by a private foundation whose stated goal is to put more public money into privately run charter schools. The board’s immediate past president resigned to go work for a private education foundation that does business with the school district. Another of its board members runs a foundation that gets money from the school district. A previous board member went from the board to run a group looking to bring more corporate influence into the school system. And now another leading candidate for a board vacancy, the pro-voucher former lieutenant governor Barbara O’Brien, says that even if she wins the board seat, she will ignore concerns about self-dealing and remain the paid executive director of a pro-charter foundation to which the school board gives public money.

Considering this hideous record, it is hardly shocking that this same school board a few years ago agreed to a Wall Street financing scheme so corrupt it landed on the front page of the New York Times. Orchestrated by then-superintendent Michael Bennet after a stint as a corporate raider for right-wing billionaire Phil Anschutz, the scheme enriched the financial industry that later bankrolled Bennet’s U.S. Senate campaign. It also blew a $177 million hole in the school system’s budget at a time when that system was already being crushed by the state’s pathetic education funding levels. That’s when – on cue – the plutocratic ideologues waltzed in to Denver, publicly portraying themselves as benevolent saviors, but privately brandishing political axes.

As the Denver Post reports, since just 2009, “DPS has received $77 million in gifts and grants from private foundations, corporations and individuals” – much of it with ideological strings attached. Bill Gates’ foundation, for example, gave the public schools $10 million. The cash was given in exchange for the school board’s guarantee that the schools would build a punitive teacher “evaluation” system that conservatives hope will help blame teachers for the school system’s systemic problems and then create the rationale to bust the teachers’ union.

Likewise, the Walton Foundation gave $8 million to help the city’s public schools with budget shortfalls, in exchange for the board reclassifying more traditional public schools as “innovation” schools. To the notoriously anti-union Walton family, that was a great political victory, as the “innovation” classification allows the board to tear up a school’s union contract and make teacher’s at-will employees.

Not surprisingly, many people in the city are today sufficiently pissed off about what’s been going on. So with another board election coming up in just a few weeks, the public threats to harm the hostages have begun.

These aren’t just any old threats couched in sententious language, mind you. As a recent piece in the alt-weekly Westword showed, these are egregiously explicit and menacing promises to harm children. In that article, investment banking aristocrat Bruce Hoyt – shocker! a former Denver school board member – issued this stunningly brazen threat to voters:

Hoyt also points out that the district has received millions of dollars in grant money from national foundations over the past several years “because people have such confidence in our reforms.” If the district switches directions, “I could see a lot of that money drying up and causing budgetary problems for DPS,” he says.

The message from this politically connected financial industry snake is clear: if Denver voters dare even think about challenging the destructive privatization agenda in their own school system, corporate foundations will exact even more painful revenge against the city’s children.


There are, of course, plenty of other examples of this hostage-taking extortion. In New Jersey, for example, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg gave Newark Mayor Cory Booker a secret education slush fund. Booker somehow found time away from leveraging his office for personal cash to then use the money to neuter the local school board and weaken the teacher’s union. At the same time, down the road in Trenton, following foundations’ efforts to strongarm voters into keeping particular politicians in public office, insurance kingpin Eli Broad’s foundation threatened to cut off its education funding for the state’s kids if voters dare vote anti-union Gov. Chris Christie out of office.

Across the country in Los Angeles, the hostage taking tactics are even more invasive, as they operate at both the political level and at the school personnel level. As Dissent magazine’s Joanne Barkan recounts in her recent must-read article:

Private foundations have used another tactic to exert influence on the Los Angeles Unified School District: they paid the salaries of more than a dozen senior staffers. According to the Los Angeles Times, the privately financed “public” employees worked on such ed-reform projects as new systems to evaluate teachers and collect immense amounts of data on students. Much of the money came from the Wasserman Foundation ($4.4 million) and the Walton Family Foundation ($1.2 million); Ford and Hewlett made smaller grants. The Broad Foundation covered the $160,000 salary of Matt Hill to run the district’s Public School Choice program, which turned so-called low-performing and new schools over to private operators. Hill had worked in Black & Decker’s business development group before he went through one of the Broad Foundation’s uncertified programs to train new education administrators.

A Times editorial on January 12, 2010 asked, sensibly, “At what point do financial gifts begin reshaping public decision-making to fit a private agenda?…Even the best-intentioned gifts have a way of shifting behavior. Educators and the public, not individual philanthropists, should set the agenda for schools.”

Once again, the threat is clear: if the community tries to do something other than the foundations want, the foundations will exact financial revenge on kids by pulling funding from the cash-starved school district.

Barkan notes that in all these hostage situations, there is a symbiotic self-reinforcing relationship between corporatists’ anti-tax crusades and their desire to dominate public education policymaking. The less tax revenues that are generated, the less public revenues schools have and the more private foundations can use their money to enact their anti-union, pro-privatization agenda.

“The mega-foundations use their grants as leverage: they give money to grantees who agree to adopt the foundations’ pet policies,” she writes. “Resource-starved states and school districts feel compelled to say yes to millions of dollars even when many strings are attached or they consider the policies unwise. They are often in desperate straits.”

Over time, as this threat-retribution-acquiescence cycle is institutionalized and as corporate campaign contributions cleanse school boards of pro-public-education voices, a kind of Stockholm Syndrome develops in which substantive questions about failed “reform” policies are no longer even asked. Ultimately, the public is removed from its own public education system and faraway moguls turn education policy into their ideological plaything, consequences be damned. Worst of all, the hostages are left to suffer – and have no hope of ever being released.

Subscribers have unrestricted access to all NSFWCORP content, always

Top of Form

Get access to everything we publish, including the full archive, online and in print for just $7 per month. You can cancel at any time, with just a single click.

Payment details Name as it appears on your card  Credit card number

Security code (CVC)

Expiration date /

Shipping address

Street address  Street address 2

City

State/Province/Region

Postal Code

Country

We ship anywhere in the world, free.

Create your account Email  Password (to manage your subscription)    Get our free weekly email newsletter

Bottom of Form

This Dispatch will remain unlocked until 9 hours from now.

 

A reader writes:

“What I would really like to see is Arnie Duncan in a seventh period class, of whatever subject he could be certified in, implementing his signature policies. Only someone who has never taught in a public school could with a straight face implement race to the top. Should add, it would be a good idea if he took a tests-and-measurement class that might help understand the fundamental problems with ranking teachers, ranking schools, or ranking of any kind. I would add, it is extremely difficult to have an intelligent conversation with someone who lacks a fundamental knowledge of the theories, concepts, principles, of a domain they are in charge of — he is the secretary of education, not the secretary of commerce. Mr. Duncan’s elevation, both in Chicago and then to Washington speaks to how powerless the educational profession is. Our profession has been successfully colonized by business goals, vocabulary, and methods. It will take years, maybe decades to recover from the mess Bush and Obama have generated in our schools.”

The blogger Louisiana Educator describes a meeting in Baton Rouge where leaders of the corporate reform movement worried about the progress of their plans to privatize education in the state. Time is running out.

This is a chilling post.

I hope that its author, experienced educator Mike Deshotels, won’t mind if I excerpt this long introduction. You should read it all.

A small private meeting was held in Baton Rouge a couple of weeks ago including representatives of several highly influential power brokers who are dedicated to a major overhaul and privatization of our K-12 education system. These groups were very concerned that much of the Jindal reform legislation has either been declared unconstitutional by the courts or is still tied up in litigation. They are frustrated that the supporters of our public education system are fighting back against their sweeping “reforms”. They figure that they have only the rest of the Jindal administration in which to push through revisions of the law that will keep their reforms intact.

They are concerned that only a relatively small number of teachers are on a pathway to being fired as a result of the sloppy implementation of the new VAM evaluation by Superintendent John White. They believe also that the new laws should be identifying many principals and even local superintendents who should be fired. The firings are not happening quickly enough!

They are concerned that the privatization of our K-12 educational system is not happening fast enough. They are frustrated that many of the new voucher schools have turned out to be run by small time swindlers who knew almost nothing about education and who had no business running schools. They feel their cause has received bad publicity when it was revealed that some voucher schools were teaching about dinosaurs and humans existing at the same time.

This is a mighty hoax being perpetrated on the people of the state. Let them know. Stop the privatization movement now.

A friend in a conservative think tank said it was time for me to write a post praising John Arnold for giving $10 million to keep Headstart alive during the federal government shutdown.

Arnold was an Enron trader who left with $3 billion before the Enron scam collapsed, destroying the pensions of everyone who worked there. Other Enron executives went to jail, but Arnold got out before the collapse and is now using his fortune to advance privatization of public schools and to attack pensions of public sector employees nationally.

At first, I thought, what a nice gesture on the part of a man who fleeced so many Enron investors. I am glad he is using a tiny part of his vast fortune to do some good.

Then I read this article by David Sirota. Sirota, who has become one of the nation’s finest investigative journalists, said that Arnold was buying good PR and diverting public attention from his efforts to impoverish millions of retirees by slashing their pensions. Oh, well, at least their grandchildren will be able to go to a Headstart center.

My friend on the right said I was becoming too cynical. But I don’t think that is quite right.

How should one feel about a man who walks away with $3 billion from a corporation that looted its stockholders, whose major executives went to jail, whose employees lost their life savings? How should one feel about his efforts to cut the pensions of people who have retired on $40,000 a year?

My view: outrage is a human and appropriate response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In case you missed the last week of the long-running drama and comedy series, called “Corporate America Wants to Love Public Education to Death,” EduShyster fills you in. 

You will laugh and cry as you watch leaders of the movement tear their hair out as they argue about whether the mighty scam perpetrated by the virtual charter schools are truly “reform” or are they, well, scams.

You will snicker as you see the break-up of true lovers in the parent tricker biz in California.

You will laugh as you review the efforts of the “P” (privatization) movement say they never ever heard of the word, and all they are saying is give P a chance.

This is one of her best. She just gets better and better all the time.

How does she do it?

Joanne Barkan has an excellent essay in Dissent magazine that explains how foundations founded by plutocrats use their wealth and political power to damage democracy.

She uses the example of public education to demonstrate how a small number of large foundations have captured control of public policy, taking it out of the hands of voters and parents to impose their will and get what they want.

She offers the examples of the AstroTurf groups created by the Gates Foundation; these are groups that pretend to represent local, grassroots groups but in fact carry out the wishes of the plutocrats.

Then there is the example of grants offered to districts that are contingent on certain officials remaining in office.

Then there is the example of the “parent trigger,” which manipulates parents to hand over their public school to a private corporation.

And another example is the practice of the Broad Foundation, which underwrites the salary of certain public officials to ensure that it gets its way.

She asks a good question: why are these plutocrats allowed to get tax breaks as they impose their control over and subvert a democratic institution?

This is a subject that deserves a book-length treatment. With her meticulous research skills and her understanding of the political dynamics involved, Joanne Barkan is just the one to do it.

I have said in the past that I am dismayed that Education Week takes money from the foundations it covers, like Gates and Walton. I have said that I am dismayed at its shameless advocacy for the edtech shlock and profiteering now inundating the schools.

But Education Week has great reporters, who tell it like it is.

In this blog, Mark Walsh reports on the controversy over NBC’s biased selection of participants. Why in the world would NBC invite the CEO of Goldman Sachs as an “education expert?” Why in the world is the list tilted towards governors on the far-far-far right? Why are there so few educators?

How can there be a debate when only one side is represented?

How can a national discussion of American education take place with no discussion of poverty and segregation, budget cuts and privatization? Why no panel on equitable distribution of resources to the neediest children? Why no discussion about the remarkable growth in the for-profit management of public schools?

Thanks, Mark Walsh. You restore my faith in EdWeek.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan blasted critics of Race to the Top and his “reforms” as “armchair pundits.”

Anthony Cody writes about his remarks here and reproduces part of his remarks (not the part where he boasts of his many “accomplishments” as Secretary of Education). I expect he made no reference to the high levels of demoralization among teachers and principals documented by the annual MetLife survey. But, hey, disruption is part of the plan, right? Pushing out the veterans is not counted a bad thing in Arne’s play book. He likes the nimble kids who stay two years, then leave.

Does Duncan think that teachers and principals are armchair pundits?

Does he think that researchers who have demonstrated the futility of value-added assessments like Linda Darling-Hammond (candidate Obama’s education advisor in 2008) are armchair pundits?

Does he think that researchers like David Berliner, who has studied the effects of poverty on academic achievement for decades, is an armchair pundit?

I guess he means me. I have studied the history and politics of American education for more than forty years. It is true that I believe what Duncan calls “reform” is a disaster that is demoralizing teachers and principals, harming communities, and doing incalculable damage to American education. I explain why I believe this in my new book, “Reign of Error.” I document everything I write.

I would like Secretary Duncan to explain why he thinks that more testing and more standardization and more charter schools is better than placing his bets on the research-based recommendations in my book.

I would like him to explain why the Obama administration’s education policies are so closely aligned–nearly identical–to the failed NCLB policies.

Looking for common ground.

Patrick Welsh is an experienced teacher who writes often in the Washington Post about the real problems of schools. If only the editorial board of the Post–besotted with the failed strategies of corporate reform–would heed the wisdom of Patrick Welsh!

In this article, he describes the many reforms that have been imposed in teachers in his high school since he started teaching forty years ago. The article refers to “four decades of failed school reforms.”

Now we are in the worst of all reforms, where the “reforms” are devised by non-educators or people who taught for a year or two. Where non-educators or those with minimal experience are made state commissioner of education and use their power to demoralize teachers and destroy the teaching profession.

This era will end. But how many excellent teachers will we lose before the reform industry admits its failure and goes away?