Archives for category: For-Profit

The Louisiana blogs, which these days are the only place in that corrupt state to read honest and probing discourse, are buzzing with rumors that their state commissioner John White will soon leave for a job with Arne Duncan.

If true, he will not be missed. Jindal will find another reactionary ideologue to take White’s place and pursue the governor’s radical privatization agenda.

Why would Duncan want White? When Jindal chose White, Duncan called him “a visionary leader.” White would help Duncan prepare the nation for mass privatization. Sad to say, White and Duncan are on the same page. ALEC beams, as do all the other rightwing extremists to see this Democratic administration advancing its agenda–or doing nothing to impede it.

Author William Doyle has been observing the current “reform movement” promoted by people like Arne Duncan, Michael Bloomberg, Bobby Jindal, Rick Snyder, Rick Scott, and Michelle Rhee, and he has developed a theory about its true nature. Doyle thinks that the current movement is Soviet-style, with unrealistic targets and top-down control. What struck me as amazing is that I read an article in the Teachers College Record and blogged about it a year ago, in which the author argued that the current model of “education reform” is Stalinist. At the time, I thought this was perhaps extreme. I am not so sure anymore.

Doyle writes:

The currently dominant theories of education reform are being mis-labeled as “market-driven education reforms” or “corporate education reforms.”

 

Most of these theories would not last 5 minutes in a truly free market; or a profitable corporation; successful hedge fund or private equity firm, since the results have been so poor.

 

These sham reforms – – including turning schools over to political cronies and education amateurs and cyber-charters, the flagrant abuse and misuse of standardized tests, spending tens of billions of dollars on unproven reforms, unproven technologies and unproven testing schemes – – are actually the opposite of the free market or corporate models – – they are Soviet-style sham reforms.

 

Like Soviet models, they are based on top-down, rigid command and control; ideological orthodoxy and one-party thought; flagrant disregard for evidence; the brutalization of human capital; the disembowlement of unions; the crushing of dissent; and the massive misapplication of resources and data; all of which create massive inefficiencies and inevitably poor results.

 

They also rely on cults of personality created for false idols; and the creation of false miracles and Potemkin success stories.

Like the Soviet Union, they will collapse.

Please join this important discussion about the corporate attempt to trick parents into handing their public schools over to private corporations:

The Parent Trigger from California to Florida

Sunday, May 26, 2013 from 12:30 PM to 1:30 PM Pacific Time

We will be hearing from Lori Yuan, a parent in Adelanto who fought the Parent Trigger at her school, and Parents Across America Founding Member Rita Solnet who, along with other organizations, defeated the Parent Trigger bill in the Florida State Senate on March 9, 2013.

To reserve your ticket, go to eventbrite.

This event is free.

This event is organized by Parents Across America.

Researchers Sarah Reckhow of Michigan State University and doctoral student Jeffrey Snyder reported at an AERA session that foundation giving is increasingly concentrated on a small number of recipients.

Foundation funding is moving away from giving to public schools–attended by 90% of American students–and is going instead to “challengers” to the system, especially charter schools–attended by about 5% of American students.

The story in Education Week says:

“At the start of the decade, less than a quarter of K-12 giving from top foundations—about $90 million in all—was given to the same few groups. Five years later, 35 percent of foundation giving, or $230 million, went to groups getting support from other foundations, and by 2010, $540 million, representing 64 percent of major foundation giving for K-12, was similarly aligned.”

The groups now getting the lion’s share of foundation funding are KIPP, Teach for America, the NewSchools Venture Fund, the Charter School Growth Fund, and the D.C. Public Education Fund.

None of the main recipients of foundation funding are models for American education. All are committed to privatization. The best known alumni of TFA are Michelle Rhee, John White of Louisiana, and Kevin Huffman of Tennessee, all of whom support vouchers and charters.

When will the foundations wise up and stop supporting failed policies?

Don’t they care about the 90% of American children who attend public schools? Or do they think that someday all schools will be run by private entrepreneurs?

Nicholas Lemann has written a powerful review of Michelle Rhee’s memoir, in which she calls herself “radical.” She is indeed radical. She wants to tear down public education, a basic democratic institution. That is very radical.

As Lemann points out, Rhee has reduced all the problems of American education to the very existence of unions. This can’t offer much hope to the many states where unions are weak or nonexistent. Who should those states blame since they don’t have unions to scapegoat?

Lemann notes that Rhee loves to portray herself as a victim, a woman of courage who stands up fearlessly to the rich and powerful. The reality, of course, is that Rhee is a tool of the rich and powerful.

An excerpt:

“Rhee is a major self-dramatizer. As naturally appealing to her as is the idea that more order, structure, discipline, and competition is the answer to all problems, even more appealing is the picture of herself as a righteously angry and fearless crusader who has the guts to stand up to entrenched power. She is always the little guy, and whoever she is fighting is always rich, powerful, and elite—and if, as her life progresses, her posse becomes Oprah Winfrey, Theodore Forstmann, and the Gates Foundation lined up against beleaguered school superintendents and presidents of union chapters, the irony of that situation has no tonal effect on her narrative. Again and again she gives us scenes of herself being warned that she cannot do what is plainly the right thing, because it is too risky, too difficult, too threatening to the unions, too likely to bring on horrific and unfair personal attacks—but the way she’s made, there’s nothing she can do but ignore the warnings and plow valiantly.”

Of course, she is ridiculous because she has collected tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, from America’s richest people. Just days ago, she got $8 million from the far-right Walton Family Foundation.

The other point Leman makes is that Rhee has no evidence for her claims. She starts with her conclusions, then looks for “evidence.”

An excerpt:

“Rhee simply isn’t interested in reasoning forward from evidence to conclusions: conclusions are where she starts, which means that her book cannot be trusted as an analysis of what is wrong with public schools, when and why it went wrong, and what might improve the situation. The only topics worth discussing for Rhee are abolishing teacher tenure, establishing charter schools, and imposing pay-for-performance regimes based on student test scores. We are asked to understand these measures as the only possible means of addressing a crisis of decline that is existentially threatening the United States as a nation and denying civil rights to poor black people.”

Clayton Christiansen loves disruption.

He loves the idea that almost everything familiar to us will die and be replaced by competition.

Many corporate reformers swear by him. They think disruption is creative.

I wish they would get out of our lives and make money selling something other than disruption.

This article describes what a grass-roots rebellion looks like.

It describes a growing revolt against failed education policies.

It reviews the mounting protests by students, parents, teachers, school boards against senseless mandates.

It even shows clueless Secretary Duncan both embracing and not embracing the so-called “parent trigger” that was defeated twice by Florida’s parents.

This is how a revolution against the status quo begins.

With spontaneous actions by all affected.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Wall Street investors are very upset by the financial and ethical issues at the UNO charter chain in Chicago.

UNO is a politically connected charter chain. Its founder, Juan Rangel, was co-chair of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s campaign.

UNO obtained $98 million from the state legislature to build new charters. It turns out that $8.5 million of that money went to companies owned by two brothers of UNO’s number 2 official, Miguel d’Escoto. When the scandal broke, he stepped down from his $200,000 job, then Governor Pat Quinn halted payment on the balance still owed to UNO.

In a conference call with Wall Street investors who had loaned UNO $37.5 million through state bonds, Rangel sought to reassure them. Rangel told the investors:

“We’re talking about a construction grant that has no guidelines…In our minds, there was no conflict.”

Of course, the governor did see a conflict of interest, which is why he suspended state funding.

Investors were also concerned about the recent decision by UNO teachers to unionize, because they are paid $20,000 less than teachers in the public schools.

A new blogger enters the national scene!

This blog is devoted to fairy tales and other simple legends that show the fallacies of the corporate reform movement.

This post is about Chicken Little. Remember Chicken Little? He was hit on the head and went to tell the world that the sky was falling.

There are many other great fairy tales, Dr. Seuss tales, myths, etc. to explain the current madness of “reform.”

The one that comes to mind immediately is “the emperor’s new clothes.” Just guess who the emperor is? Who will tell him the truth.

What is your favorite tale that strips bare the pretensions of those who think that testing will close the achievement gap, that privatization is the way to advance equity, and that constant battering of teachers will attract better people into teaching?

This is a story that may elicit a gasp from you. That’s what it did to me. Arne Duncan was asked about the breakdown of the computer assessments in Indiana. He responded with a brief soliloquy on how businesses fail and succeed, and why we cannot go back to the olden days of pencil and paper (which no one suggested). Be sure to read the excellent comments that follow the linked articles.

And ask yourself what happens if and when hackers tamper with the tests and the scores.

A reader sent this not-to-be-missed article:

This is our education CEO speaking on the fact that kids in Indiana are on Week Two of a frustrating, time-wasting adventure in standardized testing:

“We should have competition. We should be transparent — I don’t know who that company is, I don’t want to pre-judge — but if that company can’t deliver, there’s an opportuntiy for someone else to come in and do something very, very different… We should not have one problem and then say we should go all the way back to pencil and paper, that doesn’t make sense to me.

This is a business. Folks are making money to buy these service. If those folks are doing a good job to provide that service, they should get more business. If they’re doing a bad job providing that service, they should go out of business…
We’ll get better and better. I do think, directionally, this is the right way to go. We have multiple players playing in these space… Let’s see who’s for real. But again, directionally, having computer-adaptive tests, having the ability to evaluate way more than just fill-in-the-bubble stuff — the critical thinking skills — directionally, it’s the right way to go.”

I am so, so tired of this CEO-speak. I really need Arne Duncan to tell me testing companies are “a business”? Kids are taking these tests. They aren’t his employees.

It’s also dishonest. It’s a rhetorical tactic. No one was suggesting that we “go back to paper and pencil”. His response to every question on this testing regime is to portray his critics as Luddites who don’t understand the “21st century.” It’s a way to shut down critics and it isn’t a response offered in good faith.