Archives for category: For-Profit
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

How to Spot Propaganda

By dianeravitch
October 17, 2012 //
7

A reader sent us a useful description of propaganda techniques:

“How to Identify Propaganda Techniques”

(So many parallels to the “reform agenda”.)

1
Look for the use of “glittering” generalities in the form of catchphrases, sweeping and vague statements. Slogans using positive and uplifting concepts such as love, honor, family, peace and freedom are often the tools used by propagandists because they appeal to the masses .

2
Watch for the use of symbols that are attached to authority or things most people respect. The Nazi swastika is an example of a symbol used to elicit an emotional response from the public such as, intimidation or fear. A respectful symbol, such as the American flag is used during the Pledge of Allegiance to unify people’s patriotism, reinforce their belief in God and loyalty to the country. This is the transference technique used to appeal to people’s emotions and get them on the propagandists’ bandwagon.

3
Be alert to name-calling. Propagandists will often make negative statements against groups or institutions they are attempting to denounce rather than positively tout the merits of their own proposals and concepts.

4
Be leery of testimonials by those who might garner respect from the public. Testimonials may be presented by a person who really doesn’t have the authority to gauge the value of the product or concept being presented, but is respected in the community. The “expert” may also have a vested interest in backing the propagandists’ agenda.

5
Be on the lookout for “plain folks.” Propagandists will often use spokesmen who claim to be from humble beginnings to gain the respect and trust of the crowd.

6
Watch for suggestions that if you’re not on board with the concept or product being hyped, you will be left out. Propagandists try to get followers on the “bandwagon” to avoid feelings of isolation and loneliness.

7
Be alert to strong, one-sided facts that support the propagandists’ case. “Card-stacking” is the most difficult propaganda technique to identify, GMU points out. The propagandists will stack the cards in their favor, only using facts and arguments that support their agenda, ignoring evidence that contradicts or invalidates their point of view.

How to Identify Propaganda Techniques | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_10061890_identify-propaganda-techniques.html#ixzz27d7iJU8k

Categories ALEC, Bush, Jeb, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Privatization

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette Endorses Glenda Ritz!

By dianeravitch
October 15, 2012 //
3

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette published a powerful editorial endorsing educator Glenda Ritz for State Superintendent of Public Instruction in Indiana.

Tony Bennett, the current superintendent, is a foe of public education. He removed the word “public” from his title. He has done whatever he could to promote privatization of the state’s public schools. He opened the state to for-profit corporations to make money while supplying mediocre education.

Bennett is a willing hand-maiden of ALEC and the far-right. He is a member of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change.

Not surprisingly, Bennett has a huge campaign chest. Let’s get the word out to parents and citizens who don’t want to privatize their public schools.

In case you don’t have time to open the link, here is the editorial:

Indiana public schools are struggling under the leadership of Tony Bennett, superintendent of public instruction. His unproven experiment in school choice and privatization has strained local districts at the very time they’ve needed the support and resources of a strong Indiana Department of Education.

Fortunately, his challenger, Glenda Ritz, demonstrates the skill and passion to help all students and recognizes the state’s civic health and economy depend on strong public schools. Her experience in communicating a classroom perspective to legislators is sorely needed as educators grapple with a host of new laws and regulations.

Indiana enjoyed almost 24 years of steady, collaborative effort to improve public education under Republicans H. Dean Evans and Suellen Reed, but Bennett’s election four years ago marked an end to the partnership among policymakers, educators, parents and the business community. The noteworthy improvement Indiana schools have made in recent years, including higher graduation rates, is the result of the foundation Evans and Reed set.

Rather than follow their example, Bennett cleaned house, replacing experienced educators with a DOE staff whose frequent turnover has left school districts struggling to interpret rules and requirements. He took advantage of GOP majorities to push an expansive legislative agenda, including the nation’s most expansive voucher program. Before its effects are even known, he is looking to extend it, eliminating the restriction that vouchers go only to students who first attend public school.

While enthusiastically promoting vouchers and charter schools, Bennett has expanded state control of local schools and exercised authority to hand them over to for-profit operators. Through the rule-making process, he has weakened the licensing requirements for teachers and administrators and now champions the national Common Core academic standards – less rigorous than Indiana’s highly acclaimed standards – and a new test to replace ISTEP+.

Also troubling are his ties with out-of-state donors and corporate interests. He spent much of 2011 traveling the country, often at the expense of groups looking to privatize schools. His campaign donors include wealthy school-choice proponents. Wal-Mart heir Alice Walton gave him $200,000, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg contributed $40,000. Some of the largest have come from groups backed by hedge-fund managers. Bennett’s campaign chest is nearing $1.5 million. Compare that to the $39,000 Reed had raised at the end of her 2004 re-election contest. Ritz has raised about $100,000 to compete against Bennett.

What she lacks in fundraising prowess, Ritz makes up for in experience. A library media specialist for Washington Township schools in Marion County, she is one of just 155 Indiana educators certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, considered the gold standard in teacher certification.

Ritz proposes more local input in policy promulgated by the state. She said she would begin with a comprehensive assessment of school needs, including curriculum and technology.

“DOE is going to be bottom up instead of top down,” Ritz said.

She also pledges to support early learning and to stop increased reliance on standardized testing, now misappropriated to paint public schools, districts, students and teachers as failures. The inaccurate depiction doesn’t serve the state in attracting jobs or retaining young families.

Voters should compare the leadership styles and results of a politically ambitious superintendent versus his two widely respected predecessors. Ritz promises to serve more in the mold of Evans and Reed; she’s the easy choice for Indiana’s top education post.

Categories Charter Schools, Chiefs for Change, Education Reform, For-Profit, Indiana, On-Line Education, Privatization, Vouchers

Is Michelle Rhee the Ann Coulter of Education?

By dianeravitch
October 14, 2012 //
20

Jeff Bryant asks whether Michelle Rhee is the Ann Coulter of education.

Rhee expends great energy insisting that Democrats support the hard-right agenda of ALEC. She tries to sell the idea of a bipartisan consensus to eliminate collective bargaining rights, teacher tenure, test-based evaluation, and privatization via charters and vouchers.

Democrats would be wise to stick to their historic agenda of equality of educational opportunity and public education.

Rhee has no popular base for her agenda. Although she claims two million members, most of those “members” seem to be people (like me) who innocently signed an online petition supporting teachers. When she held a rally in Hartford, Connecticut, last fall, no one showed but media and a handful of onlookers.

What she does have is a load of money, contributed by Rupert Murdoch, the Waltons, and assorted rightwing billionaires. She uses it to support Republican candidates and the few Democrats who endorse vouchers or promise to oppose unions.

Her relentless promotion of the anti-union film “Won’t Back Down” demonstrated her lack of any popular backing. The film had the worst opening weekend in thirty years of any movie in wide distribution (2500 screens), and immediately died at the box office, despite heavy marketing and advertising. The Regal cinema chain (owned by Philip Anschutz, whose company Walden Media produced the film) is now offering two tickets for the price of one. But in these hard economic times, it’s tough to sell a story in which the union members are the bad guys and the entrepreneurs are the good ones.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Parent trigger, Rhee, Michelle, Testing, Unions, Vouchers, Walton Foundation

A State Board Member Joins the Honor Roll

By dianeravitch
October 13, 2012 //
11

Carolyn Hill ran for a seat on the Louisiana state education board as a reformer. But after she assumed office, she realized that “reform” was intended to privatize the public schools, not improve them.

For having the wisdom and courage to see beyond the rhetoric; for speaking out and acting on behalf of children and educators, Carolyn Hill joins our honor roll as a hero of public education.

Commentary: In Louisiana, trickery is disguised as school reform

As a member of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, I am writing to express my disappointment in the deceptive practices that are being used to disparage our traditional schools and educators.

I ran for the BESE position because I wanted to be an integral part of reforming schools in Louisiana. My campaign was based on reform. Shortly after being elected to the state board, I realized what is being offered up as reform is nothing more than trickery.

I am reminded of the biblical story relating to Adam and Eve. God warned Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit; yet, Eve manipulated Adam and evil arose from the eating of this fruit. I use this example to inform my constituents and the public that everything that glistens isn’t gold. Many so-called reformers are trashing traditional public schools while many parents are facing real discrimination.

Choice is being sold to many parents as the silver bullet. However, many parents have reported their concerns and confusion regarding the responses they have received. Some students are being denied access to schools of their choice. I want to appeal to parents to exercise caution with their choice options. The virtual learning opportunities, if not monitored, may have far reaching implications regarding student success. Be wise and proactive in your choice decisions and don’t accept less than was promised.

I recall growing up and revering the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. However, as an African-American, I am concerned that there is silence regarding the future of our children. Where are our leaders? Why do we want out-of-state vendors to come to Louisiana to educate our children? Where are the standards? Why do we promote certification in traditional schools and don’t require the same standards for charter schools? Why are we operating under different standards? Why does a state Board of Education and Legislature make a distinction between education providers? Why would any board of education not require certification and testing when education is all about the attainment of standards?

I did campaign on education reform — responsible reform — where there is an equitable playing field. The education reform that exists in Louisiana today consists of irresponsible education policies and laws. Again, I am saddened that many have forgotten the struggles of King and others who have taken a stand for all people.

Are we going to abandon this legacy?

I am also reminded of all the elected officials who were in opposition to the education reform legislation during this past legislative session. I want to say thank you. I also say we must not abandon our responsibilities. We must rise to be the voices for our children, parents, and educators. If we don’t stand openly and vocally for our children, then it may be said we are as guilty as if we had eaten of the forbidden fruit.

—Carolyn Hill is the District 8 member of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Categories Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, Honor Roll, Louisiana, Privatization

Why the Free Market Cannot Reform Public Schools

By dianeravitch
October 12, 2012 //
55

We previously read an article claiming that for-profit entrepreneurs are necessary to reform American schools. The article began, in its original version, with a vulgar and gratuitous insult directed at Anthony Cody.

Here are two great responses. The first is by Anthony Cody.

The other is by Audrey Watters.

Categories Education Reform, For-Profit, Privatization, Technology, Computers

The Case Against For-Profit Entrepreneurs in Education

By dianeravitch
October 11, 2012 //
8

A reader shared his response to the article praising the profit motive in education.

Hi Diane. I wrote the following reply to Tom Segal on their web page.

Eight years ago, I would have agreed with you on your perspective, Mr. Segal. Unfortunately, your efforts to paint the public education community as in dire need of the profit motive are profoundly misguided. I have spent the last 8 years teaching in public charters, which are nothing more than privatized public schools. My experience, and the data, show that they rarely perform any better and in 1/3 of the cases, perform worse than traditional public schools.

Your error lies in in your belief that the dynamics of a capitalistic market apply within the mandate of the public education sector. They simply do not. By law, schools must accept all students that walk through their doors. Name me one company that has that mandate. There simply isn’t one. A competitive market is based on choice. Choice by the vendor to offer the product and choice by the consumer to reject the product. At the end of the day, the vendor doesn’t have to sell to everyone and the consumer doesn’t have to buy anything (whether because they don’t want it or can’t afford it). In education, this is unacceptable. The entire basis of public education is anti-competitive by design, and with good reason. In competition, someone always loses out. When you are dealing with children, this is unacceptable. If education becomes for profit, we will end up with the same thing we have in health care–40 million people who are left with nothing while for profit care providers make enormous profits. For our country, this would be incredibly destructive.

There is also a huge difference between schools working with for profit vendors and schools themselves becoming for profit vendors. For profit vendors will do whatever it takes to maintain the highest profitability. Cut wages, eliminate less profitable products, close down entire production facilities, etc. This type of instability may work in a world where companies are dealing with widgets. However, introducing this type of volatility into the education world is extremely destructive. I have seen students suffer through the poor performance of their school, the subsequent closing, and their shuffling to yet another poorly performing school. This is not “market efficiency” that is necessary in education. It is instability introduced at the most vulnerable time in an adolescent’s life.

Lest you think that I’m simply ignorant of business, I should say that I earned an undergraduate integrative Business/Econ major and am currently earning my MBA. Over seven years ago, I charged into battle with the same cry of privatization and “for profit” motive you are espousing here. My direct experience showed me the folly of this type of thinking.

If you haven’t already, I would encourage you to earn your credential and go and teach in the public education classroom for at least five years. I don’t believe anyone who has not actually taught in the public school has any right to authoritatively criticize it, especially from a perspective as potentially detrimental as introducing for profit motives into public education. I find it remarkable that people who have no education experience act as though they know what’s best for the education profession itself. No other profession would tolerate this type of behavior. Imagine if I would presume to criticize the methods general practitioners use to treat their patients. Imagine if I presumed to suggest sweeping changes to the investment banking world, having no experience at all as an IB. Even worse, imagine if I not only criticized it, but had billions of dollars to begin altering those professions and their economic structures. Yes, the “Market” might push me out after I had failed, but at what cost was I proven a failure? How many lives did I affect negatively? What types of damage may have been irrevocably done?

Children are not test subjects for the mega wealthy and for venture capitalists. If someone wants to bring change and “reform” to public education, they should start by getting deep experience in the classroom to learn first hand what the real challenges are. No one who hasn’t paid their dues in the “trenches” as a Private has any right to presume to take the title of General and to lead an army.

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, Privatization

The Case for For-Profit Entrepreneurs in Education: UPDATE!!!

By dianeravitch
October 10, 2012 //
46

This is the most revolting article I have ever provided a link to. It is written by some money-grubbing entrepreneur who boasts that for-profit businesses are necessary to provide the innovation that education needs.

His insult to my friend Anthony Cody sets the tone (the article originally had the subtitle “How I Kicked Anthony Cody’s Ass,” but it was changed by the editors as “playful” but “out of bounds”</).

Apparently this guy was annoyed when Cody had the nerve to challenge the Gates Foundation for facilitating the privatization of public education.

I say we need more teachers like Anthony Cody and fewer profit-seekers.

For-profit businesses are valuable for supplying goods and services but I have not seen any evidence that for-profits should run schools. Their bottom line is making a profit, not making good education. The way they make a profit is by cutting costs, and they do this by replacing experienced teachers with low-cost, inexperienced teachers, or replacing teachers with technology. They don’t ask whether it’s good for children or whether it improves education, but whether it increases the ROI (return on investment).

The entrepreneurs create these sham schools for other people’s children, not their own.

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Reform, For-Profit, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, On-Line Education, Privatization

Florida School Boards Resist Aggressive Expansion of Virtual Charters

By dianeravitch
October 10, 2012 //
6

The online for-profit corporation K12 wants to grow its business in Florida but school boards are opposing it. The online charters poach students and funding from public schools while providing a poor quality of education.

They do, however, have one big political advantage. They have the fervent support of former Governor Jeb Bush, who is a political powerhouse in the state.

Independent studies have found high dropout rates, low test scores, low graduation rates, and inflated billing at the virtual charters. K12 is under investigation in Florida. But it is so profitable that it is undeterred by little issues like poor results and the harmful effects on the entire structure of public education. These guys are corporate raiders of the public purse. A “school” that recruits only 10,000-15,000 students will draw $100 million in revenues while having no maintenance costs, no nurses, no social workers, no library, nothing like the fixed costs of real schools. And what profits!

Categories ALEC, Bush, Jeb, Education Industry, Education Reform, Florida, For-Profit, Privatization

Playing Games with Data in Louisiana

By dianeravitch
October 9, 2012 //
18

Yesterday I wrote a post about how the Pennsylvania Secretary of Education was pulling a few fancy tricks to inflate the scores of charter schools. This makes it easier to claim that they are incredibly successful (when they are not) and persuade the Legislature to add many more.

But it turns out that Louisiana is even slicker than Pennsylvania when it comes to playing games with the data. One of our readers, whom I deduce is or was an employee of the Louisiana Department of Education, has the goods.

Read this post and please be sure to open the link for more chicanery in Baton Rouge. The bottom line: Now that Bobby Jindal and John White control the State Department of Education, don’t trust the data they produce.

Actually, John White and Louisiana have already perfected several of these techniques and added a few twists of their own. I’ve documented some of the tricks being used here:

Louisiana Managing Expectations and Manipulating the Public – for example: “T” isn’t for Terrible Schools, it’s for Turnaround Schools!

Basically they are defining schools they take over and/or turn over to charter operators as “Turnaround” schools for two years and don;t report any data on them. If the scores don’t improve they plan to reassign them to a new charter. Only schools that do well will ever get reported. Additionally, all of the recovery school district in New Orleans is defined as a small school district, less than 1000 students. Even though taken together they easily exceed that coun. Several of the sub-districts like Algiers have multiple sites and exceed that number, but for purposes of reporting the data for these districts LDE has decided to count the schools as their own district. I’m pretty sure even then we have one or two schools with more than 1000 students, but this has been reported by our departing accountabilty folks to USDOE with no apparent effect.

PA’s only mistake is not reporting what they were doing, USDOE doesn’t care if you cook the numbers, as long as you tell them you are I guess.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, Jindal, Bobby, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Privatization, Vouchers

Really. Truly. It’s Not about Profit.

By dianeravitch
October 9, 2012 //
8

Edushyster has done it again.

Here, Edushyster defends Joel Klein against the outrageous claim that Rupert Murdoch is trying to make a profit by selling lots of stuff to the schools. It’s all about collaboration. It’s all about replacing teachers with technology to help with budgetary issues. It’s all about reform.

Categories For-Profit, Klein, Joel, Privatization, Technology, Computers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »