Archives for category: For-Profit

No wonder the big corporations and tech companies are so enthusiastic about Common Core.

The education industry is an emerging market!

Look at this Oregon-based company’s website, and you will see the possibilities. It will be supplying cloud-based resources for New York and other states.

And what a team! Fabulous corporate experience.

Wow! No wonder these business guys look down on teachers. You do the grunt work, you know, like doing stuff with kids every day, and they take home big bucks.

Want to know why spending on public education has mushroomed?

Look no farther than the booming education industry that federal dollars have created through No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, are siphoned away from schools to pay for consultants and services that have no track record but promise the moon. Private contractors will train your teachers, train your leaders, create teacher evaluation systems, sell you new technology, turn your school around with minimal or maximal pain, your choice.

As soon as Congress opens the door to the education industry, the industry returns the favor with lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Our tax dollars at work!!! Al the while, class sizes grow larger, the arts are eliminated, and basic needs go unmet because “we can’t afford it.”

Consider NCLB’s requirement that low-scoring students must receive tutoring. A sound idea, no? Unfortunately, it encouraged the creation of thousands of inexperienced, incompetent tutoring companies that recruited students by promising rewards to students or principals. The results: Nil.

Consider this story from the Texas Tribune, republished in the New York Times:

“Under the No Child Left Behind tutoring program, underperforming schools had to set aside a portion of the federal financing they received for economically disadvantaged students to get outside tutoring. In Texas, with minimal quality control at the state level, it resulted in millions of dollars in public money going to companies that at best showed little evidence of their services’ academic benefit, and at worst committed outright fraud.

“The program has been suspended in Texas, as the state secured a waiver from the federal law’s requirements last month. Education officials have said that, for now, there are no plans to continue the program at the state level.

“But as No Child Left Behind awaits Congressional reauthorization, the tutoring industry is energetically pushing federal policy makers to preserve public financing for tutoring, either in the updated law or other legislation — lobbying efforts expected to be duplicated at the state level in Texas, where over the years tutoring companies have cultivated powerful political ties.

“I have no doubt that the next legislative session, they will lobby for this way of spending dollars to be decided in Austin instead of the neighborhood school level, and I think that would be a real disservice,” said State Representative Mike Villarreal, a San Antonio Democrat who passed legislation during the 2013 session tightening regulations on the federal tutoring program.

“The law resulted in a booming industry that created an unprecedented role for commercial tutoring companies in public education. At the time, the program’s proponents said such private-sector involvement would fuel innovation in public schools while offering top-notch instruction to students who needed it.

“Instead, it flopped, bringing years of complaints from school districts, which detailed practices like the use of incentives like iPads to recruit students into programs as well as significant concerns about instructional methods and falsified invoices.”

But the lucrative tutoring industry will not let failure for kids get in the way of profit, no-sir-see!

Here is more:

“Texas has taken a “shortsighted, irresponsible approach,” Stephanie Monroe, a former assistant secretary for education in the United States Office for Civil Rights, wrote in a letter to the editor published in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram in response to The Texas Tribune’s series on the program.

“Without the tutoring program, Ms. Monroe said, the state’s poorest students will “no longer have access to the services they need to succeed and otherwise are unable to afford.”

“She said her organization acknowledges that stronger oversight of tutoring services is needed. But Ms. Monroe, who left her government post in 2009 to found a lobbying firm, added that “allowing states like Texas to arbitrarily eliminate them altogether due to a few bad actors is just reckless public policy.”

“Tutor Our Children, which describes itself as a group dedicated to preserving free tutoring for economically disadvantaged students, has spent almost $900,000 in federal lobbying expenses, including on contracts with Ms. Monroe, since it began in 2010. An additional $500,000 has gone to marketing, public relations and fund-raising costs, according to the organization’s tax filings.”

The lobbying was intense in the governor’s office and the legislature:

“In the last two years, the company has spent an estimated minimum of $240,000 on lobbying teams in Austin and Washington. The company’s founder, Charles Young, has given more than $140,000 in political contributions to state Republican lawmakers, including $20,000 to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and $26,000 to Mr. Perry.

“Mr. Young served on a 2013 Texas Education Agency committee that developed recommendations for the state’s school accountability system — a panel that also included Sandy Kress, a former Bush education adviser who has lobbied for Tutors With Computers. The company’s own advisory board has included Rod Paige, the former United States secretary of education and Houston Independent School District superintendent, who helped put No Child Left Behind into place.”

This is called “leaving no child behind,” or “students first,” that is, as long as there are federal dollars attached.

Cindi Pastore created this multiple-choice exam for the people of Infiana.

It illustrates the current crazy situation there. Glenda Ritz won a startling upset victory last fall, winning more votes than Governor Pence. Yet Governor Pence has worked unceasingly to dilute Ritz’s authority and render her powerless to carry out her official duties. He and the unelected state board are thwarting her so they can continue to privatize education in the state of Indiana.

Here is the test:

An Eight Question High Stakes Test for Governor Pence, Brian Bosma, David Long, and Members of the State Board of Education

1. Who was elected by an overwhelming majority (roughly 1,300,000) of the voters (many of whom crossed their party lines) of this state to be the Indiana Superintendent of Public Schools?

a. Claire Fiddian-Greene
b. Brian Bosma
c. GLENDA RITZ
d. David Long
e. Mike Pence
f. Any of the appointed Members of the SBOE
g. Daniel Elsener

2. Who campaigned and won on the platform of re-introducing evidenced-based educational methods, policies, and standards including: more teaching and less testing, more local control for implementing standards, safe and respectful schools, high standards for educators, improved vocational education, and reserving public dollars for public schools?

a. Claire Fiddian-Greene
b. Brian Bosma
c. GLENDA RITZ
d. David Long
e. Mike Pence
f. Any of the appointed Members of the SBOE
g. Daniel Elsener

3. Who is a National Board Certified Teacher, holds two masters degrees with licenses to teach elementary, middle and high school in the areas of special education, general education, and library science, and has won both the Teacher of the Year for Washington Township Schools and a Golden Apple Award?

a. Claire Fiddian-Greene
b. Brian Bosma
c. GLENDA RITZ
d. David Long
e. Mike Pence
f. Any of the appointed Members of the SBOE
g. Daniel Elsener

4. Who held a Community Partners School Improvement Summit and started the Hoosier Family of Readers program since beginning her elected job of Indiana’s Superintendent of Public Instruction?

a. Claire Fiddian-Greene
b. Brian Bosma
c. GLENDA RITZ
d. David Long
e. Mike Pence
f. Any of the appointed Members of the SBOE
g. Daniel Elsener

5. Who has been continually thwarted in her attempts to carry out the duties of her office, the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, by a bombardment of politically motivated and unnecessary requests for ill-conceived action and irrelevant information?

a. Claire Fiddian-Greene
b. Brian Bosma
c. GLENDA RITZ
d. David Long
e. Mike Pence
f. Any of the appointed Members of the SBOE
g. Daniel Elsener

6. Who is being hurt by the Governor, the members of the SBOE, and those legislators who are being obstructionist to Superintendent Ritz’ work?
a. The CHILDREN of this state
b. The CHILDREN of this state
c. The CHILDREN of this state
d. The CHILDREN of this state
e. The CHILDREN of this state

7. Whose money is being wasted by the creation by Governor Pence of an agency with an non-elected head, that is essentially an attempt to be a duplication of the Indiana Department of Education?

a. The TAXPAYERS of Indiana
b. The TAXPAYERS of Indiana
c. The TAXPAYERS of Indiana
d. The TAXPAYERS of Indiana
e. The TAXPAYERS of Indiana

8. Who will respond to the bullying of Superintendent Ritz by the Governor, the SBOE board members, and members of the state legislature?
a. The VOTERS in Indiana
b. The VOTERS in Indiana
c. The VOTERS in Indiana
d. The VOTERS in Indiana
e. The VOTERS in Indiana

Answer Key: For each of questions 1-5, the answer is c. For each of questions 6-8, the answers are a,b,c,d, and e.

Grading Scale: A= 8 correct answers F= 0-7 correct answers

A reader in North Carolina updates us on the great tablet fiasco, the recriminations, and the eternal question: who is making a lot of money? Hint: not the teachers.

The reader writes:

Add to this fiasco ANOTHER one from North Carolina. (Greensboro’s NEWS AND RECORD has created a page for the great Tablet Deal Gone Wrong):

http://www.news-record.com/news/schools/collection_9555d386-2551-11e3-a120-0019bb30f31a.html

Scroll to bottom article discussing current Guilford County Schools Sperintendent Maurice Green’s connection to Peter Gorman, current senior vice-president for AMPLIFY and former superintendent of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools ( i.e. Green’s former boss). Green kept mum about the connection.

Key excerpt below from:
http://www.news-record.com/news/schools/article_9c78ebb8-bd9a-11e2-9fc2-0019bb30f31a.html

Gorman joined Amplify after serving as superintendent of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools from 2006 to 2011. Green was his deputy superintendent before leaving in 2008 to lead Guilford County Schools.

“It raises an eyebrow,” said Linda Welborn, school board member. “I could see the concern and possibly the perception from other people that are aware of the connection.
“Had I known, I probably would have asked more questions.”

Welborn and board members Ed Price and Darlene Garrett said staff should have mentioned that history when they recommended Amplify for the four-year contract.
But Price and Welborn said Amplify seemed worthy of the contract because it had the lowest bid and met the district’s criteria.

“The fact that (Gorman) worked there, that in and of itself would not have stopped me from voting for them if they had the best deal,” Price said.

“I do not question Mo Green’s integrity, and I don’t think he would have done something just because of his past relationship with Peter Gorman.”

Nora Carr, the district’s chief of staff, said Green purposely excluded himself from the review process so as not to influence the staff’s decision.

“He certainly made every effort to remove himself from the process so that the team could make decisions that were based on facts and the individual strengths of the proposals,” said Carr, who also worked for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools before coming to the district in 2008.

Carr said business connections in the education sector are common. Green had a previous work history with an employee of another company that bid on the PACE project, she said.

And he developed relationships with executives at Apple, which provided iPads to Montlieu Academy of Technology.

Green and school board Chairman Alan Duncan also used to work for the same law firm.
“Education is a small world,” Carr said. “If we ruled out every company that had a connection with us, we would have a very small pool to draw from.”
Still, some board members were not satisfied with the review process — either because the project team did not include teachers or because details weren’t provided on the other vendors.

Garrett, who voted against the Amplify contract, said she wanted to hear presentations from other companies.

“We should have had more information,” Garrett said. “We should have asked for it, but I think we were in a rush to approve it.”

The school district won a $30 million federal Race to the Top grant in December and is on a tight schedule to put digital devices in the hands of most middle school students this fall. The initiative is part of national efforts to improve student learning through digital technology.

But some people wonder who stands to benefit more from the trend — the students or the companies selling the technology.

“There is the concern that once you’re locked in there, what happens after the four years?” Welborn said about the devices. “This new age of electronic teaching is going to be huge money.”

A reader spots a niche business:

“How about the idea of online early childhood? Learning to play with virtual toys with virtual friends?”

So Los Angeles spent $1 billion on iPads, promising grand outcomes, closing the digital divide between rich and poor, the “civil rights issue of our time,” yada, yada, yada.

But as this blogger points out, this move was made without the most elementary planning or forethought.

Should anyone have been consulted before spending 25-year school construction bond money on iPads? Will voters ever again approve such a bond knowing that it may be diverted to an administrator’s pet project?

She asks questions that apparently never occurred to the administrators who bought the iPads:

“If the ipads stay in the classroom, how is their distribution to be managed in any way efficiently?

If in the classroom, is the physical integrity of the building sufficient to ensure everyone’s and everything’s safety?

If staying in the classroom, does that forfeit the device’s biggest potential, as substitutes for heavy, expensive, resource-intensive textbooks?

If not to stay in the classroom, how will internet access be managed among “not-wired”, very poor or chaotic homes?

How are electronics to be harnessed for education alone and not hijacked by its social, interactive component?

If not in the classroom, how to reconcile bond construction monies targeted to long-term infrastructure support, with transient instruction delivery tied to non-durable goods?

If not in the classroom, how to manage the high turnover (purportedly up to one-third) among students of some high-poverty communities? What is the implication for device-specific instruction? For physical disappearance of the devices?

When was the imperative of Common Core testing agreed upon, as it underlies the drive behind implementing the
ipad program precipitously?

When were teachers presented an honest cost:benefit analysis toward soliciting professional input regarding utility and efficacy in educating their students???

And:

“When were parents presented an honest cost:benefit analysis toward soliciting parental input regarding utility and efficacy in educating their child???

“The bottom line is: the people such massive programs with gargantuan implications affect, need to be asked first. A program of such eclipsing size and existential implications needs at the least to be tested, to be piloted and then: to be evaluated before approving or denying subsequent phases.”

“It is an incredibly uncomfortable position to feel patronized and exploited by in-house imperialists. How do these detached, possibly ulteriorly-motivated administrators know what is best in the classroom, without going into the classroom? Ask the denizens there what they need, and for some sense of the fallout.”

From California to New York, the same questions arise: why don’t the people making decisions about children and education listen to parents and educators?

In a democracy, consultation is necessary and wise. Great leaders know how to listen and are wiling to learn from their errors.

Charter schools were supposed to be creative sources of innovation. They were supposed to show what could be accomplished when government got out of the way. The newcomers would give lessons to the professionals, who couldn’t be trusted.

But it hasn’t worked out that way. In Ohio, charter schools are some of the worst schools in the state. 83 of the lowest performing 84 schools in the state are charters.

Guido H. Stempel III, a distinguished professor emeritus in the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University, says that the people of Ohio have been cheated.

Stempl says the driving force behind charters is greed.

He writes:

“There are 27 organizations, and 25 of those are for-profit. One of those, with 17 schools, is run by an Islamic minister.
We have a double standard. There are 200 state laws that apply to public schools and not to charter schools Qualifications of teachers are not checked as they are for public school teachers. Auditing of finances does not occur as often.
The names of public school board members are public and listed in a state directory. There is no record of who the members of school boards for charter schools are or how they are chosen. Public school boards must have a regular meeting schedule, and if they schedule additional meetings they must notify local media. The public does not know when charter school boards meet.
There is, in short, a lack of oversight.”

When the state ordered the state’s largest charter operator, David Brennan, to close two of his low-performing schools, “One reopened in the same place with a new name and the same staff. The other was the same story except that they replaced 30 percent of the staff.

“The charter schools are getting almost a billion dollars from the state. This year charter schools got bigger increases in state funding that the public schools did. Money was taken from appropriations for districts. More that a million dollars was taken from the five districts in Athens County.

Why do the legislature and governor protect charters from accountability?

Simple.

Charter school owners contribute generously to political candidates.

Robert D. Shepherd, curriculum writer and author, left the following comment following Andrea Gabor’s post about the data collecting and data mining business called inBloom.

He writes:

“There were 55,235,000 K-12 public school students in the US in 2010. At $5.00 apiece for inBloom, that would amount to $276,175,000 a year. And if inBloom had a large existing database, it would become a monopoly provider. Switching from it would be next to impossible.

But that’s just the beginning. The whole point of gathering this real-time data on student responses is to link it to online adaptive curricula, with inBloom 2.0 as the gateway, the portal, for delivery of that curricula–

serving up the mind-blowingly inane online worksheet on the schwa sound to little Yolanda and the Powerpoint-like online worksheet on the foil method for factoring to little Kwame. The fans of this online adaptive curricula are the sort of people who think that all learning can be reduced to bullet points on a screen.

At any rate, when the inBloom database becomes the portal for curricula, that’s when the big bucks start rolling in, from inBloom’s “partners,” like Murdoch’ and Klein’s Amplify, for example. And inBloom has made it VERY clear from the start that that’s their plan. That’s the “promise” of having such a database.

Quite a promise.

In short, inBloom is a strategic powerplay for the education market.

I dearly hope that people will have the sense to stop this Orwellian operation before it sinks its data-gathering tentacles into our nation’s children.

Think of it, a nationwide portal for delivery of curricula, a gateway with inBloom as toll-taker.

As Arne Duncan’s office put it, “The new standards are about creating a national market for products that can be brought to scale.”

Bill Gates earned his billions by selling a small amount of stuff to practically EVERYONE.

It appears that inBloom has a very similar long-term business model.

It gets even worse. Read the Department of Education’s Report on “Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century.” This report envisions hooking kids up to real-time monitors of their affective states and feeding THOSE into the database as well so that grit, tenacity, and perseverance can be measured continually.

This kind of thing goes WAY BEYOND Orwell’s Telescreens in 1984. The whole concept is sickening.

And Arne Duncan’s Department of Education is serving as the facilitator for the creation of this Orwellian Common Core Curriculum Commissariat and Ministry of Truth (Minitrue).

You have to give it to these guys for cooking up such a diabolical strategic plan. And almost no one seems, yet, to be hip to what this national data-gathering is really about over the long term. Such plans could be carried out only if people weren’t really paying attention. So far, that’s worked well for the, ahem, “reformers.” We have new NATIONAL “standards” even though most U.S. citizens have never heard of them and haven’t a clue what they are, what’s in them, who paid for them, who created them, what consequences they will have for curricula and pedagogy, and so on. All that new standards and testing stuff was done with NO national debate and with no vetting.

I’m sure that the inBloom folks were hoping for the same here. And the truly frightening thing is that their hopes might well be fulfilled.

Totalitarianism can come about through violent revolution. It can also come about because no one is paying attention.”

Yesterday, I posted a story about a charter school in Miami founded by a rapper known as Pitbull. This fellow was lauded by NPR for his philanthropy in founding a charter school. The fact that he has no qualifications to run or create a school is of no matter. He is known for his vulgar language and his contempt for women. The school will be managed by a for-profit corporation that has become very rich in this new entrepreneurial venture called “charter schools.” Read the post, but more important, read the investigative reporting by Jersey Jazzman and Mother Crusader. Mr. Pitbull’s school is a real money-maker. So, hey, this is America! Anyone can open a school! Come and get the taxpayers’ dollar! No one is watching the store! This is called “reform.” Will the students study the works of the founding father, Mr. Pitbull?

This reader looked up some of Mr. Pitbull’s oratory and though that this printable selection should be posted as a plaque on the building:

I hadn’t heard of Mr Pitbull before this, and so naturally I rushed to look up the lyrics of his songs. You are correct in saying that most of the lyrics are not worth repeating, but I thought this little excerpt from his 2004 song ‘We don’t care ’bout ya’ was relevant in this context:

We don’t care about yo clique
We don’t care about yo crew
We don’t care about yo bitch
We don’t care what you do
We don’t care about your car
We don’t care about your chips
We don’t care about shit
except getting rich

Maybe this could be engraved on the new school’s signboard as a kind of motto.

I never thought I would see the day when NPR ran a story complimenting a misogynist rapper for opening a charter school. This rapper, who calls himself Pitbull, writes lyrics that are too filthy to repeat on NPR or on this blog.

But there is Claudio Sanchez, reporting on the charming phenomenon that celebrities who are not educators and who apparently have no education themselves are opening charter schools! Isn’t that wonderful! Shouldn’t we all be impresssed!

Well, no, it is not that Mr. Pitbull has a heart overflowing with love of children or love of learning. He is making a lot of money. Fortunately for the readers of this blog, we have read Jersey Jazzman and Mother Crusader, both of whom did the sort of research that NPR did not do. Mr. Pitbull has another name: Armando Perez. In Jersey Jazzman’s article, you will see Mr. Pitbull-Perez has hired Academica, a for-profit charter chain with revenues of $158 million, to run his new charter school. Academica is owned by Mr. Fernando Zulueta, who controls some $115 million in real estate in Miami, all exempt from property taxes because his for-profit schools are “public.”

The story–and the money trail–gets way more complicated, but NPR did not see fit to discover any of the backers of Mr. Pitbull’s school.

The story gets entangled in Florida Republican politics, as Mother Crusader shows.

As always, it is a good thing to follow the money. Who is putting up the money, who is getting the money, who is making out like bandits?

But there is a lingering question: Why does anyone think it is a good idea for celebrities to open their own schools and to get public dollars for their profitable vanity project? How are we supposed to “outcompete” the globe by turning our children over to uneducated sports stars and rappers?