Vanity Fair tells the inside story of the Steele dossier, the one that was taken seriously by the FBI and CIA and shared with the President and the President-Elect.
Drip, drip, drip.
Archives for category: Education Reform
After I posted the story about the forthcoming PBS Series called School Inc., which promotes privatization, reflecting the views of the privatization movement, I shared the story with investigative journalist David Sirota. He recalled the time that his journalism compelled PBS to return millions of dollars to billionaire financier John Arnold for a program he funded about “the pension crisis.” Arnold has a passion for eliminating pensions for public employees.
He also pointed out a story about Bill Gates’ generous support for PBS programs like The Teaching Channel and for programs advocating for the Common Core.
Now, we understand that PBS and its affiliates need to raise money, but the public expects that whatever they feature will be fair and balanced, not an advertorial.
And we certainly don’t expect PBS to align its programming with the whims of rich individuals who seek to undermine and/or privatize and/or control public education.
I would certainly be shocked to see a program on PBS funded by billionaire Robert Mercer on why the nation does not need public television. Yet PBS has shockingly committed to airing a four-part series attacking public schools and praising the virtues of privatization.
When does the public interest get equal time?
Please call 703-739-5000 to register your protest.
Be sure to ask when they will give equal time to expose the corporate attack on our public schools.
David Kirp, professor of public policy at Berkeley, often contributes articles to the New York Times about successful public schools and districts.
His latest is a terrific article that you will enjoy about an innovative public school district in Oklahoma.
At the Union Public Schools district in the eastern part of Tulsa, Okla., “more than a third of the students are Latino, many of them English language learners, and 70 percent receive free or reduced-price lunch. From kindergarten through high school, they get a state-of-the-art education in science, technology, engineering and math, the STEM subjects. When they’re in high school, these students will design web pages and mobile apps, as well as tackle cybersecurity and artificial intelligence projects. And STEM-for-all is only one of the eye-opening opportunities in this district of around 16,000 students.
“Betsy DeVos, book your plane ticket now.
“Ms. DeVos, the new secretary of education, dismisses public schools as too slow-moving and difficult to reform. She’s calling for the expansion of supposedly nimbler charters and vouchers that enable parents to send their children to private or parochial schools. But Union shows what can be achieved when a public school system takes the time to invest in a culture of high expectations, recruit top-flight professionals and develop ties between schools and the community….
“This individual attention has paid off, as Union has defied the demographic odds. In 2016, the district had a high school graduation rate of 89 percent — 15 percentage points more than in 2007, when the community was wealthier, and 7 percentage points higher than the national average.
“The school district also realized, as Ms. Burden put it, that “focusing entirely on academics wasn’t enough, especially for poor kids.” Beginning in 2004, Union started revamping its schools into what are generally known as community schools. These schools open early, so parents can drop off their kids on their way to work, and stay open late and during summers. They offer students the cornucopia of activities — art, music, science, sports, tutoring — that middle-class families routinely provide. They operate as neighborhood hubs, providing families with access to a health care clinic in the school or nearby; connecting parents to job-training opportunities; delivering clothing, food, furniture and bikes; and enabling teenage mothers to graduate by offering day care for their infants…
“Superintendents and school boards often lust after the quick fix. The average urban school chief lasts around three years, and there’s no shortage of shamans promising to “disrupt” the status quo.
“The truth is that school systems improve not through flash and dazzle but by linking talented teachers, a challenging curriculum and engaged students. This is Union’s not-so-secret sauce: Start out with an academically solid foundation, then look for ways to keep getting better.
“Union’s model begins with high-quality prekindergarten, which enrolls almost 80 percent of the 4-year-olds in the district. And it ends at the high school, which combines a collegiate atmosphere — lecture halls, student lounges and a cafeteria with nine food stations that dish up meals like fish tacos and pasta puttanesca — with the one-on-one attention that characterizes the district.
“Counselors work with the same students throughout high school, and because they know their students well, they can guide them through their next steps. For many, going to community college can be a leap into anonymity, and they flounder — the three-year graduation rate at Tulsa Community College, typical of most urban community colleges, is a miserable 14 percent. But Union’s college-in-high-school initiative enables students to start earning community college credits before they graduate, giving them a leg up.
“The evidence-based pregnancy-prevention program doesn’t lecture adolescents about chastity. Instead, by demonstrating that they have a real shot at success, it enables them to envision a future in which teenage pregnancy has no part….
“Under the radar, from Union City, N.J., and Montgomery County, Md., to Long Beach and Gardena, Calif., school systems with sizable numbers of students from poor families are doing great work. These ordinary districts took the time they needed to lay the groundwork for extraordinary results.
“Will Ms. DeVos and her education department appreciate the value of investing in high-quality public education and spread the word about school systems like Union? Or will the choice-and-vouchers ideology upstage the evidence?”
BREAKING NEWS: Julian Vasquez Heilig Has Won OK to Open Five For-Profit Charter Schools in Michigan!
Julian Vasquez Heilig has deep ties to the state of Michigan, as he is from Lansing, and he graduated from the University of Michigan. He has made his mark as a scholar of education policy at the University of Texas and now Sacramento State in California. Although he has established a reputation as a well-informed critic of charters, he could not pass up the opportunity to open a chain of charters in his home state of Michigan, where anyone can open a charter school and the financial rewards of for-profit charters are large. What’s principle when profits are so alluring?
The five charters will open this September, which is kind of quick, but then they are mostly online schools. It is no problem that Julian will continue to live in California, because, well, the weather is better.
It took only four weeks to have his request approved, so why wait to get started?
Here are three of his five new charters. You will have to open the link to read about the other two. They are doozies:
SELL Academy: SELL Academy will be primarily online and have a statewide attendance zone and serve grades 9-12. The school plans to implement an online real estate and sales curriculum through partnership with Trump University. The school aims to integrate sales into project-based learning experiences to allow students to develop critical thinking skills and a deeper understanding of sales— including real estate deals. Tremendous! There will be a brick-and-mortar location at a Trump property to be determined later.
Perfect Graduation Academy for Boys: Perfect Academy for Boys will be primarily online have a statewide with a brick-and-mortar location on land to be purchased by school and then leased back to me by my Charter Management Organization at a “great” price. Perfect will serve grades 9-10. The school will be a single-gender charter school that provides a rigorous, college preparatory program for grades 9-12. We will have a 100% graduation rate for everyone that is still at our school after four years. I promise. Perfect Academy for Boys will offer an extended day, week and year religious-based educational program. The focus is on boys, because, well, you know boys.
Exodus Academy for Girls: Exodus Academy for Girls will be primarily online have a statewide with a brick-and-mortar location on land to be purchased by school and then leased back to me by my Charter Management Organization at a “great” price (see above). I am actually thinking I might sell this school before it opens or mid-year. I’m taking offers— I’m ready to exodus.
He says he knows that Betsy DeVos will be thrilled with his success and that he was inspired by her comparison of schools to Ubers and other disruptive innovations in ride-sharing. He wants to be part of the new economy.
Need I say that Julian will be leaving the board of the Network for Public Education as of close of business today?
(April Fool!)
Arthur Camins, scientist and specialist in innovation, kicks off our celebration of April Fools Day with his timely warning not to be fooled by Trump and DeVos: in a democratic society, public schools are better than private schools. They are the only path to a better education for all. We need them. We do not need to resurrect the segregation that existed before the Brown decision. We have not achieved its democratic goals, but we should not abandon them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58deb703e4b03c2b30f6a629
He writes:
“It’s April Fools Day, which reminds me: Donald Trump and Betsy DeVos want us to think that private schools are better, not just for rich folks like them, but for everyone else too– Just like with Paul Ryan and health care. Don’t be fooled. It is a ruse. Public is better!
“Growing up, I knew the meaning of private places. Private places were about gates, both physical and de facto. Private meant, “Keep out!” Private schools were not for me, but for someone else. Private clubs were for someone else. Private roads were for someone else. I understood that the people who were saying, “Stay on your side of the gate,” were usually rich and Christian, and always White. That meant not me as a Jew. I knew for certain that it also meant, not for Blacks and not for poor folks. Sometimes, private meant no women. The message was always clear: “We do not want you around us!”
“As a nation, we need to be better than that.
“Make no mistake. The folks inside the gates of privilege aim to stay there. However, to do so they need the rest of us to believe three things: First, that they have privileges because they deserve them and the rest of us do not; Second, that there is a chance, however slim, that a few of us just might get inside and become privileged too; Third, having just a few folks inside the gates and the rest of us outside is the way things are and always will be.
“Unfortunately, in the minds of some of those standing outside the gates looking in, private implies, “That’s Better than what I have. I want that too.” Growing up, I also knew about some outside folks who managed to slip inside the gate. I grew to despise them because once inside they chose to identify with their former gatekeepers. They did not join struggles to remove gates or to make things better for everyone….
“If we want a country in which the greatest good for the greatest number of people is a high priority, public is better. I think most folks think so too. That’s why we have public schools, roads and bridges, police, firefighters, parks, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid just to name a few public services. These are common-good activities that we cannot afford as individuals, so we share the costs. Not everyone goes to school, but we all benefit from an educated citizenry. Not everyone drives, but without good road and bridges, we would all suffer. Some of us are not old and in need of extra medical care, but we might be someday. Cost sharing brings broad access. It makes economic sense. For most of us, it is also a moral responsibility.”
The Network for Public Education enthusiastically endorses Steve Zimmer for Re-Election to the board of the public schools of Los Angeles.
In the primary, he received nearly half of all the votes, barely missing the majority he needed to avoid a run-off.
His opponent is funded by the Billionaire Boys Club. They are pouring millions into the race in an effort to gain control of the school board and enact Eli Broad’s nefarious plan to put half the children of Los Angeles into privately run charters.
Once again, the billionaires from across the nation are gathering to privatize public education.
Steve Zimmer is their number one target.
He needs your help. Volunteer if you can. Send money if you can.
If 100,000 of us from across the nation each sent him $25, it would make a huge difference. I just sent my second contribution to his campaign.
I am writing this post for the journalists who cover education. Please fact-check every word that DeVos says. She literally doesn’t know what she is talking about.
This is the New York Times’ report on Betsy DeVos‘ press conference at Brookings.
She claims that the Bush-Obama policies of test-and-punish failed because throwing money at the problem doesn’t work. Any teacher could have told you that NCLB and Race to the Top were failures, not because they threw money at the problems, but because they spent money on failed strategies of high-stakes testing, evaluating teachers by test scores, closing schools, and opening charters.
She is so ill-informed that she would be well advised never to speak in public.
Her comparison of selecting a public school to hailing a taxi is offensive: schooling is a right guaranteed in state constitutions, taking a cab or car service is a consumer choice. She was echoing her mentor Jeb Bush, who compared choosing a school to buying a carton of milk, when he addressed the GOP convention in 2012.
As you will see if you read the account in the story, she has the unmitigated gall to say that her crusade for consumer choice in education–whether charters, vouchers, homeschooling, cyberschooling, whatever–serves the “common good.” What an outrage! Providing a high-quality public school,in every zip code serves the common good. Tossing kids to the vagaries of the free market subverts the common good. Anyone who has been reading this blog for any period of time has learned about the entrepreneurs who open charter schools to make money, about the sham real estate deals, about the voucher schools that teach science from the Bible, about the heightened segregation that always accompanies school choice. Wherever George Wallace and his fellow defenders of racial segregation are, they are rooting for DeVos.
Furthermore, she is utterly ignorant of the large body of research showing that charters do not get better results than public schools, voucher schools get worse results, and cybercharters get abysmal results.
Then she makes a crack about how America’s scores on international couldn’t get worse. She is wrong, and Grover Whitehurst should have told her so. Our scores on the international tests have never been high. Over the past Hal century, we have usually scored in the middle of the pack. Yes, our scores could get much worse. We could follow the Swedish free-market model and see our scores tumble.
Grrr. It is frustrating to see this kind of ignorance expressed by the Secretary of Education, although Arne Duncan should have lowered our expectations.
Please read “Reign of Error” and learn that test scores are the highest ever for whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians (although they went flat from 2013-2015, probably in response to the disruptions caused by Common Core); graduation rates are the highest ever; dropout rates are the lowest ever. When our students took the first international test in 1964, we came in last in one grade, and next to last in the other. But in the years since, our economy has surpassed all the other nations with higher scores. The test scores of 15-year-olds do not predict the future of the nation.
The website Chalkbeat posted an article about the sunny side of Secretary DeVos.
She likes really good programs!
Like Florida’s tax credit programs for vouchers! (Which sucks tax dollars away from public schools)
Like Milwaukee’s school choice programs! (Which have produced no positive results for students in 26 years)
Like Nevada’s Achievement School District (which does not yet exist and is modeled on Tennessee’s failed Achievement School District; unmentioned: most of Nevada’s charters are failing schools by the state’s metrics–Nevada needs an Achievement School District for failing charters)
She is cheerleader-in-chief for school choice. Given her deep-seated antagonism for the democratically-controlled community public schools that 90% of our nation’s children attend, we should expect a change of heart.
By we should expect unsentimental, critical reporting.
Laura Chapman writes about breaking news:
“Pending a signature by Trump, Republicans have succeeded in making internet privacy a relic of the past. Last week the Senate passed a bill that will give internet service providers (ISPs) the automatic right to make a profit from every bit of data that you and your family, including children, place on your computer through an internet service provider such as Verizon, Comcast, AT&T Inc., or Charter Communications Inc.
“At around 3 pm today, (March, 28, 2017) House Representatives voted to kill legislation intended to enhance internet privacy.
“Moreover, the just-passed legislation makes it a “forever after” impossibility for the restoration of the Obama legislation or anything similar to it. Even if there is a massive breech of ISPs data (e.g., your SS number, credit card information, banking accounts and transactions, health records, your child’s school records and internet activity) the ISP is no longer obliged to notify you.
“House Republicans argued that breeches of privacy can be managed on a “case-by-case-basis.” In other words, the user of the ISP service hires a lawyer and hopes to get satisfaction through a court action. The House Republican argument also featured claims about regulatory overreach stifling innovation and boosting the economy. http://thehill.com/policy/technology/326145-house-votes-to-send-bill-undoing-obama-internet-privacy-rule-to-trumps-desk
“If you are a techie, you might think there is a work-around. This article casts some doubt on that. https://www.wired.com/2017/03/vpns-wont-save-congress-internet-privacy-giveaway/
“It is not clear to me how this bill intersects with The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)–the Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law is supposed to apply to all schools that receive funds under “an applicable program” of the US Department of Education. Since the USDE is being “deconstructed” and the edtech industry and its supporters want internet-based everything, I imagine that lobby will be thrilled with this legislation.
“Further, it is not yet clear how this bill intersects with the privacy and security standards for medical information provided in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), administered by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), now under the leadership of longstanding Republican Thomas E. Price, M.D.
“I listened to the House Republicans and Democrats go back and forth about the bill. None mentioned the ripple effects across other federal agencies.
“Some internet gurus think that the bill also has major implications for national security, making theft and marketing of ISP data lucrative.
“The purpose of this bill was to enable ISPs to seek profits from their data. ISPs operate as monopolies in many regions. They gather your clicks, record your dwell times and all other data that gets you access to the other “retail” tier of the internet—Google, Bing, and specific websites, The ISP lobby wanted the gravy train of profits enjoyed by the “retailers.”
I was a founding board member of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (now, Institute). It is a pro-choice organization. I opposed the decision to sponsor charter schools in Ohio, because I thought it was outside the work of a think tank. My ideal think tank would exercise independence in reviewing government policy and gain respect for avoiding doctrinaire conclusions. On that issues, I was out voted, but was not surprised when most or all of the charters we sponsored were failing schools.
I left TBF in 2009 when I realized that I no longer shared its commitment to choice, testing, and accountability.
I appreciate the fact that TBF Is more willing to acknowledge its failings than other rightwing advocacy groups.
Last July, TBF released the results of a study of the Ohio voucher program, commissioned by TBF and conducted by Northwestern professor David Figlio. Here is the full study.
The study was not an endorsement of vouchers.
The students who won the vouchers were not the most disadvantaged:
“Student selection: The students participating in EdChoice are overwhelmingly low-income and minority children. But relative to pupils who are eligible for vouchers but choose not to use them, the participants in EdChoice are somewhat higher-achieving and less economically disadvantaged.”
Voucher schools can choose their students and did not accept the neediest
“Competitive effects: EdChoice modestly improved the achievement of the public-school students who were eligible for a voucher but did not use it. The competition associated with the introduction of EdChoice appears to have spurred these public-school improvements.” This strikes me as a gargantuan leap of logic. The students who did not use the vouchers improved their test scores. But nothing in this study ascertains that they improved because of competition with vouchers. It is just as reasonable to conclude that they had better teachers than those in the voucher schools.
“Participant effects: The students who used vouchers to attend private schools fared worse on state exams compared to their closely matched peers remaining in public schools. Only voucher students assigned to relatively high-performing EdChoice eligible public schools could be credibly studied.”
The spokesman for TBF called attention to the modest gains of students who didn’t use the voucher.
So here is the logic of Ohio’s voucher program:
If you use the voucher, your academic performance will go down.
If you don’t use the voucher, you academic performance will modestly improve.
This is a bizarre argument for vouchers. Take the medicine and you will get sicker. Don’t take the medicine and you will feel better.
Why is Ohio wasting millions on a program that doesn’t work? Unless you are not in it?
