Archives for category: Ethics
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Steve Lopez of LA Times: No, Ref Rodriguez Did Not Make a “Rookie Mistake”

By dianeravitch
September 28, 2017 //
9

A few days ago, Peter Cunningham of Education Post (and former communications director for Arne Duncan and reliable critic of public schools and unions) wrote an article defending Ref Rodriguez, the then-president of the Los Angeles Unified School District Board, who has been indicted on multiple counts for money laundering and campaign finance fraud. Cunningham said that Ref was being treated harshly because of his prominence and that he had simply made “a rookie mistake.”

Steve Lopez, a regular columnist for the Los Angeles Times, refutes Cunningham’s claims in this article.

He also answers a question that bothered me about Ref’s indictment. Why is it illegal to give money to your own campaign? As Lopez explains it, it is not illegal to give money to your own campaign, but it is illegal to pretend that you received that money from other people and then repay them for pretending to give you money.

Lopez writes:

The chief of a nonprofit that advocates for charter schools — which Rodriguez has championed — argued in a Times op-ed that the charges against Rodriguez are overblown and he should stay on the board.

“If the allegations are true, Rodriguez clearly made a rookie mistake,” said the op-ed, which called Rodriguez a humble, sincere and polite political novice who should pay fines if he broke the law but not lose his job.

A rookie mistake? Here’s my take:

If you field a double off the wall in the right field corner, wildly fling the ball over the head of the cutoff man and give up an extra base, that’s a rookie mistake.

If you pull someone over on your first night as a cop, forget to put your patrol car in park and then watch it roll over your foot as you’re writing a ticket, that’s a rookie mistake.

Rodriguez is charged with taking $26,000 of his own money and redistributing it through an intermediary to 25 people, mostly friends and relatives — who donated $24,250 to his 2015 campaign for school board.

What’s that smell like to you?

A rookie mistake, or a premeditated strategy to work around campaign law?

The L.A. district attorney’s office, which has filed 25 misdemeanor charges along with the three felonies, seems to think Rodriguez pulled off a money-laundering scheme.

And here’s the most interesting thing about the case:

If Rodriguez had donated the $26,000 to himself, that would have been legal because there’s no limit on how much you can dump into your own campaign.

So this leaves the jaded among us to wonder if Rodriguez —who has admitted to nothing, and whose lawyer did not return my call — wanted it to appear as if he had support from ordinary people, rather than just the charter-advocating high-rollers who bankrolled his campaign.

If so, here are some pointers for future reference:

Tip 1: If you want to make it look as if you’re a strong enough candidate to attract donations from working people, try to find more working stiffs who aren’t relatives or employees at the charter school organization you founded.

Tip 2. Janitors and tutors do not typically donate between $775 and $1,100 to school board candidates, and when they do, it raises suspicion.

Tip 3. Never, ever, drag your own mother into a harebrained, bone-head scheme, even if your name is Soprano. There is no way to reverse that kind of bad karma.

As prosecutors lay it out, Rodriguez cashed out a business investment and wrote the $26,000 check to a female cousin, who has also been criminally charged. The cousin — an administrator at the charter school Rodriguez started — is suspected of depositing the money into a bank account under the names of Rodriguez’s parents. Prosecutors say Rodriguez’s mother then signed 16 checks for friends and family members who were listed as donors to her son’s campaign.

I know, innocent until proven guilty. But this sounds like one hell of a rookie “mistake.” And if you’re someone who frets about awkward conversation at family gatherings during the holidays, just thank the holy gobbler you’re not spending Thanksgiving with the Rodriguez clan this year.

This was a fairly sophisticated strategy on Ref’s part, and he faces a criminal indictment.

He stepped aside as board president, but did not leave the board. So many millions were spent to get him elected, and he does not want to disappoint his backers, who funded one of the dirtiest campaigns ever seen in Los Angeles (his ads mocked his highly qualified opponent, Bennett Kayser, for his age and disability). He wanted to make sure the pro-charter majority maintained its control. He knew for two years that he was under criminal investigation, but kept this to himself.

Now, investigators and journalists will look closer at Ref’s finances. Where did the $26,000 come from? It is not only “the union” that wants to know. It is anyone who cares about ethics in government.

Stepping aside and keeping his seat is wrong. He should resign from his position from the board at once.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corruption, Ethics, Los Angeles

BREAKING NEWS: L.A. School Board President Faces Felony Charges Over Campaign Contributions!

By dianeravitch
September 13, 2017 //
26

This story broke in the LA Times just minutes ago.

“Los Angeles Unified School Board President Ref Rodriguez was charged on Wednesday with three felony counts of conspiracy, perjury, and procuring and offering a false or forged instrument, among other charges, the result of a months-long investigation by local authorities into donations to his successful first-time run for office in 2015.

“The charges against Rodriguez, 46, who represents District 5, which stretches from Los Feliz to South Gate, were detailed in a news release from Los Angeles County district attorney’s office.

“Prosecutors accuse Rodriguez of giving more than $24,000 to his own campaign, while illegally representing that the donations had been made by more than two dozen other contributors.

“The allegations come at a high point in Rodriguez’s political career. Elected board president in July, he currently presides over the first L.A. Unified school board majority dominated by members who were, like him, elected with major financial support from charter school advocates.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Ethics, Los Angeles

Should Teachers Do Product Promotions in Their Classrooms?

By dianeravitch
September 3, 2017 //
77

I would say the answer is no. Children are a captive audience. It seems unethical to use the classroom to promote brand loyalty. The classroom should be a place to learn and ask questions and develop ones skills, abilities, and interests.

But this story in the New York Times says that big business is moving into schools, using teachers to promote their products. Teachers need the extra money and school supplies. What do you think?

“MAPLETON, N.D. — One of the tech-savviest teachers in the United States teaches third grade here at Mapleton Elementary, a public school with about 100 students in the sparsely populated plains west of Fargo.

“Her name is Kayla Delzer. Her third graders adore her. She teaches them to post daily on the class Twitter and Instagram accounts she set up. She remodeled her classroom based on Starbucks. And she uses apps like Seesaw, a student portfolio platform where teachers and parents may view and comment on a child’s schoolwork.

“Ms. Delzer also has a second calling. She is a schoolteacher with her own brand, Top Dog Teaching. Education start-ups like Seesaw give her their premium classroom technology as well as swag like T-shirts or freebies for the teachers who attend her workshops. She agrees to use their products in her classroom and give the companies feedback. And she recommends their wares to thousands of teachers who follow her on social media.

“I will embed it in my brand every day,” Ms. Delzer said of Seesaw. “I get to make it better.”

“Ms. Delzer is a member of a growing tribe of teacher influencers, many of whom promote classroom technology. They attract notice through their blogs, social media accounts and conference talks. And they are cultivated not only by start-ups like Seesaw, but by giants like Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft, to influence which tools are used to teach American schoolchildren.

“Their ranks are growing as public schools increasingly adopt all manner of laptops, tablets, math teaching sites, quiz apps and parent-teacher messaging apps. The corporate courtship of these teachers brings with it profound new conflict-of-interest issues for the nation’s public schools.

“Moreover, there is little rigorous research showing whether or not the new technologies significantly improve student outcomes.

“More than two dozen education start-ups have enlisted teachers as brand ambassadors. Some give the teachers inexpensive gifts like free classroom technology or T-shirts. Last year, TenMarks, a math-teaching site owned by Amazon, offered Amazon gift cards to teachers who acted as company advisers, and an additional $80 gift card for writing a post on its blog, according to a TenMarks online forum.

“Teachers said that more established start-ups gave them pricier perks like travel expenses to industry-sponsored conferences attended by thousands of teachers. In exchange, teacher ambassadors often promote company products on social media or in their conference talks — sometimes without explicitly disclosing their relationships with their sponsors.

“Many public schools are facing tight budgets, and administrators, including the principal at Ms. Delzer’s school, said they welcomed potentially valuable free technology and product training. Even so, some education experts warned that company incentives might influence teachers to adopt promoted digital tools over rival products or even traditional approaches, like textbooks.

“Teachers can’t help but be seduced to make greater use of the technology, given these efforts by tech companies,” said Samuel E. Abrams, director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University.

“Public-school teachers who accept perks, meals or anything of value in exchange for using a company’s products in their classrooms could also run afoul of school district ethics policies or state laws regulating government employees.”

There are both ethical and legal concerns.

““Any time you are paying a public employee to promote a product in the public classroom without transparency, then that’s problematic,” said James E. Tierney, a former attorney general of Maine who is a lecturer at Harvard Law School. “Should attorneys general be concerned about this practice? The answer is yes.”

For the record, industries have always tried to place their promotional materials in the classroom to influence the views of children (the oil industry, the tobacco industry, and more). But this seems to be the first time that teachers have been hired to do their sales and marketing for them, while teaching.

Categories Corporate Reformers, Ethics, Teachers and Teaching

Rob Reich of Stanford: Big Philanthropy Empowers Plutocrats

By dianeravitch
July 25, 2017 //
39

Rob Reich,Director of the Center for Rthics in Society at Stanford University, warns that big money is using the guise of philanthropy to advance their personal agenda and bypass democratic institutions.

https://qz.com/1035084/philanthropists-dont-deserve-our-gratitude-says-a-stanford-ethicist/

“Exceptionally wealthy people aren’t a likeable demographic, but they have an easy way to boost personal appeal: Become an exceptionally wealthy philanthropist. When the rich use their money to support a good cause, we’re compelled to compliment their generosity and praise their selfless work.

“This is entirely the wrong response, according to Rob Reich, director of the Center for Ethics in Society at Stanford University.
Big philanthropy is, he says, “the odd encouragement of a plutocratic voice in a democratic society.” By offering philanthropists nothing but gratitude, we allow a huge amount of power to go unchecked.

“Philanthropy, if you define it as the deployment of private wealth for some public influence, is an exercise of power. In a democratic society, power deserves scrutiny,” he adds.

“A philanthropic foundation is a form of unaccountable power quite unlike any other organization in society. Government is at least somewhat beholden to voters, and private companies must contend with marketplace competition and the demands of shareholders.
But until the day that government services alleviate all human need, perhaps we should be willing to overlook the power dynamics of philanthropy—after all, surely charity in unchecked form is better than nothing?

“In extreme situations, such as a major disaster, Reich is supportive of donations from philanthropic organizations. But he’s strongly against private donors providing public goods on a longer-term basis, which he says contributes to a cycle whereby the state expects to provide less and philanthropists are relied on to pay for more and more. And a democratically elected government should be a far better provider of long-term services than wealthy individuals.”

That is precisely the reason that Bridge International Academies, the for-profit provider of low-cost schools in Africa is doing harm: it enables the state to do less and to shirk its responsibility to provide free, universal public education to all.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Democracy, Ethics

Robert Sternberg on the Scourge of Standardized Testing: Are We Producing a Society of “Smart Fools?”

By dianeravitch
July 1, 2017 //
61

Robert Sternberg has studied intelligence for many years. In this interview by Scientific American, Sternberg decries the new era of standardized testing.

At last weekend’s annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science (APS) in Boston, Cornell University psychologist Robert Sternberg sounded an alarm about the influence of standardized tests on American society. Sternberg, who has studied intelligence and intelligence testing for decades, is well known for his “triarchic theory of intelligence,” which identifies three kinds of smarts: the analytic type reflected in IQ scores; practical intelligence, which is more relevant for real-life problem solving; and creativity. Sternberg offered his views in a lecture associated with receiving a William James Fellow Award from the APS for his lifetime contributions to psychology. He explained his concerns to Scientific American.

The interview begins like this:

In your talk, you said that IQ tests and college entrance exams like the SAT and ACT are essentially selecting and rewarding “smart fools”—people who have a certain kind of intelligence but not the kind that can help our society make progress against our biggest challenges. What are these tests getting wrong?

Tests like the SAT, ACT, the GRE—what I call the alphabet tests—are reasonably good measures of academic kinds of knowledge, plus general intelligence and related skills. They are highly correlated with IQ tests and they predict a lot of things in life: academic performance to some extent, salary, level of job you will reach to a minor extent—but they are very limited. What I suggested in my talk today is that they may actually be hurting us. Our overemphasis on narrow academic skills—the kinds that get you high grades in school—can be a bad thing for several reasons. You end up with people who are good at taking tests and fiddling with phones and computers, and those are good skills but they are not tantamount to the skills we need to make the world a better place.

What evidence do you see of this harm?

IQ rose 30 points in the 20th century around the world, and in the U.S. that increase is continuing. That’s huge; that’s two standard deviations, which is like the difference between an average IQ of 100 and a gifted IQ of 130. We should be happy about this but the question I ask is: If you look at the problems we have in the world today—climate change, income disparities in this country that probably rival or exceed those of the gilded age, pollution, violence, a political situation that many of us never could have imaged—one wonders, what about all those IQ points? Why aren’t they helping?

What I argue is that intelligence that’s not modulated and moderated by creativity, common sense and wisdom is not such a positive thing to have. What it leads to is people who are very good at advancing themselves, often at other people’s expense. We may not just be selecting the wrong people, we may be developing an incomplete set of skills—and we need to look at things that will make the world a better place.

Do we know how to cultivate wisdom?

Yes we do. A whole bunch of my colleagues and I study wisdom. Wisdom is about using your abilities and knowledge not just for your own selfish ends and for people like you. It’s about using them to help achieve a common good by balancing your own interests with other people’s and with high-order interests through the infusion of positive ethical values.
You know, it’s easy to think of smart people but it’s really hard to think of wise people. I think a reason is that we don’t try to develop wisdom in our schools. And we don’t test for it, so there’s no incentive for schools to pay attention.

The rest of the interview is worth reading. These days, we have a lot of very smart people acting very selfishly and ignoring the common good. We could use a lot more common sense, creativity, wisdom, decency, and concern for others.

Categories Creativity, Education Reform, Ethics, Standardized Testing

Rutgers Professor Prevails Over New Jersey Charter Lobbyists Who Tried to Silence Her

By dianeravitch
June 4, 2017 //
41

This is a sordid story with a happy ending. It tells how the deep-pocketed charter industry tried to silence and discredit a scholar who disagreed with them. The story appears in the Nonprofit Quarterly.

Professor Julia Sass Rubin is an associate professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. She has researched charter schools in New Jersey, and one of her studies concluded that charter schools in the state were not serving the same demographic as public schools. She is also an active leader in the Save Our Schools New Jersey organization.

The New Jersey Charter Schools Association did not like her research. They particularly did not like a study she published in October 2014, demonstrating that charter schools enrolled smaller numbers of students with disabilities, English language learners, and poor children as compared with the public schools in the same school district.

They might have challenged her to a debate. They didn’t. They might have published a response, challenging her facts. They didn’t.

Instead the New Jersey Charter Schools Association registered complaints against her with the New Jersey State Ethics Commission charging that she had violated the state’s Conflict of Interest Law and its Uniform Ethics Code. It also complained to Rutgers University that she had violated the Rutgers Code and Policies for faculty employees.

In other words, they sought to destroy her reputation and her career.

The state board of ethics made no ruling. The university reported that there was no evidence for the charges against Professor Rubin. She was vindicated but it took two years.

Professor Rubin was the intended victim of a SLAPP lawsuit. This is defined in Wikipedia as:

“A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.

“The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.”

As Martin Levine writes in TNQ, more was at stake than Professor Rubin’s reputation.

“This story came to a happy end. After the state board made no finding, the university found none of the allegations were supported by the evidence. Yet, this remains a cautionary tale. The ease with which political opponents can make the debate personal can have a very chilling effect.

“We ended our piece two years ago with a challenge to others to speak out in defense of free, fact-based speech: “We’re waiting for state and national nonprofit associations to speak out against this travesty, as they should, and stand up for the core nonprofit value of free speech.” While Professor Rubin’s reputation and ability to freely go on with her important work has been upheld, it is more important than ever for others to speak loudly. As we see scientists removed from advisory panels and facts that don’t support political beliefs discarded, the collective voice is still critical.”

For her refusal to be intimidated, for defending the rights of others to write and speak without fear, I add Julia Sass Rubin to the honor roll of this blog. She really should be honored by the American Association of Universities, the ACLU, People for the American Way, and others who are passionate about protecting our freedoms.

Categories Academic Freedom, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Ethics, Freedom of Speech, Honor Roll, New Jersey

New York Times: Jared Kushner, Slumlord

By dianeravitch
May 23, 2017 //
19

This story about Jared Kushner’s real estate empire will appear on Sunday in the New York Times Magazine.

It is a very disturbing narrative about Jared’s vast number of rental apartments in suburban Baltimore and New Jersey. His company is relentless in pursuing tenants who move out before their lease expires. They take them to court, clean out their bank accounts, garnish their wages. Meanwhile, tenants complain about leaky ceilings, black mold, poor maintenance.

A very disturbing account. Are there ethical issues? Pull up a comfy chair and judge for yourself.

Categories Ethics, Trump

Kushner Family Goes to China to Promote EB-5 Visas

By dianeravitch
May 6, 2017 //
22

A member of the Kushner family (Jared’s sister) was in Beijing to promote investing in Kushner properties in New Jersey as a way to get an EB-5 visa. She spoke to an audience of wealthy Chinese at the Ritz-Carlton. In the past, foreign investors have received Immigration visas by investing at least $500,000 to build charter schools.

“BEIJING — The Kushner family came to the United States as refugees, worked hard and made it big — and if you invest in Kushner properties, so can you.

“That was the message delivered Saturday by White House senior adviser Jared Kushner’s sister to a ballroom full of wealthy Chinese investors, renewing questions about the Kushner family’s business ties to China.

“Over several hours of slide shows and presentations, representatives from the Kushner family business urged Chinese citizens gathered at the Ritz-Carlton hotel to consider investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a New Jersey real estate project to secure what’s known as an investor visa.”

Conflict of interest? Or what? Ethical issues?

Categories Ethics, Trump

New York: State Commissioner Elia Has Ordered a Hearing to Consider Removal of Carl Paladino

By dianeravitch
April 22, 2017 //
8

New York Commissioner MaryEllen Elia has scheduled a hearing to consider the removal of Buffalo School Board member Carl Paladino, who made vile comments about President and Mrs. Obama last winter. The hearing will be held on June 22.

Last December, Paladino was invited to participate in a published discussion of “hopes for 2017.”

His response began like this:

1. Obama catches mad cow disease after being caught having relations with a Herford. He dies before his trial and is buried in a cow pasture next to Valerie Jarret, who died weeks prior, after being convicted of sedition and treason, when a Jihady cell mate mistook her for being a nice person and decapitated her.

2. Michelle Obama. I’d like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla.

The Buffalo School Board voted for his ouster, but the decision lies with Elia.

Categories Accountability, Ethics, New York

Trump Fills the Swamp with Lobbyists

By dianeravitch
April 15, 2017 //
12

You are not likely to hear anything more about DTS, which Trump used to mean DRAIN THE SWAMP. Remember when he used to complain about the lobbyists and moochers who filled the swamp of D.C. Politics?

He has filled an even bigger swamp with creatures from the depths.

“President Trump is populating the White House and federal agencies with former lobbyists, lawyers and consultants who in many cases are helping to craft new policies for the same industries in which they recently earned a paycheck.

“The potential conflicts are arising across the executive branch, according to an analysis of recently released financial disclosures, lobbying records and interviews with current and former ethics officials by The New York Times in collaboration with ProPublica.

“In at least two cases, the appointments may have already led to violations of the administration’s own ethics rules. But evaluating if and when such violations have occurred has become almost impossible because the Trump administration is secretly issuing waivers to the rules.

“One such case involves Michael Catanzaro, who serves as the top White House energy adviser. Until late last year, he was working as a lobbyist for major industry clients such as Devon Energy of Oklahoma, an oil and gas company, and Talen Energy of Pennsylvania, a coal-burning electric utility, as they fought Obama-era environmental regulations, including the landmark Clean Power Plan. Now, he is handling some of the same matters on behalf of the federal government.

“Another case involves Chad Wolf, who spent the past several years lobbying to secure funding for the Transportation Security Administration to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new carry-on luggage screening device. He is now chief of staff at that agency — at the same time as the device is being tested and evaluated for possible purchase by agency staff.

“There are other examples. At the Labor Department, two officials joined the agency from the K Street lobbying corridor, leaving behind jobs where they fought some of the Obama administration’s signature labor rules, including a policy requiring financial advisers to act in a client’s best interest when providing retirement advice.
This revolving door of lobbyists and government officials is not new in Washington.

“Both parties make a habit of it.

“But the Trump administration is more vulnerable to conflicts than the prior administration, particularly after the president eliminated an ethics provision that prohibits lobbyists from joining agencies they lobbied in the prior two years. The White House also announced on Friday that it would keep its visitors’ logs secret, discontinuing the release of information on corporate executives, lobbyists and others who enter the complex, often to try to influence federal policy. The changes have drawn intense criticism from government ethics advocates across the city.

“Mr. Trump’s appointees are also far wealthier and have more complex financial holdings and private-sector ties than officials hired at the start of the Obama administration, according to an Office of Government Ethics analysis that the White House has made public.

“This creates a greater chance that they might have conflicts related to investments or former clients, which could force them to sell off assets, recuse themselves or seek a waiver.”

Categories Education Reform, Ethics, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »