Archives for category: For-Profit

In a recent interview, Ann Romney was asked which issue she cared most about. This was her answer.

“AR: I’ve been a First Lady of the State. I have seen what happens to people’s lives if they don’t get a proper education. And we know the answers to that. The charter schools have provided the answers. The teachers’ unions are preventing those things from happening, from bringing real change to our educational system. We need to throw out the system.”

We may safely assume that Mrs. Romney is expressing the views of her husband, the candidate.

This is the line of thought:

1. Charter schools–privately managed, deregulated schools–are the answer to the problems of American education.

2. Teachers’ unions are an obstacle to the privatization that the Romneys favor.

3. “We need to throw out” the American system of public education, the system that has evolved since the 1820s and is embedded in every state constitution.

Make no mistake: this is not a conservative policy, it is radical and extremist.

Will any major journalist notice the far-right extremism of the Romney campaign? If Michelle Obama had said anything so outrageous, it would be reported on front pages across America.

Has any member of the large Romney family ever attended an American public school?

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get different results is said to be a form of insanity.

Paul Thomas of Furman University in South Carolina shows how this definition of insanity applies to what is called “education reform” today.

Thomas’s error in this chart is assuming that the goal of the current restructuring of education is to improve or reform schools. If you think of the goal as privatization, it all makes perfect sense. That’s why I have changed my own vocabulary to use the word privatization to describe this movement.

A reader just raised an interesting question offline.

He lives in New Jersey, where the state constitution requires that the state provide a “thorough and efficient” public education.

New Jersey officials today are doing their best to dismantle and privatize the state’s public education system.

Are they violating their oath of office?

What does it say in other state constitutions where the privatizers are busy dismantling the public system for fun, power, profit and ideology?

Anthony Cody has a stunning article this week about what is happening in Louisiana.

The expansion of vouchers and charters will facilitate the re-segregation of the schools, he predicts.

Governor Jindal eliminated all funding for public libraries in his new budget.

The TFA Commissioner has put a young and unqualified TFA alum in charge of teacher evaluation.

The freight train of reform (aka privatization) is running full blast in that unfortunate state.

Arne Duncan will be there any day now to congratulate Governor Jindal on the progress made in “reforming” the schools.

And lots of thanks to the Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Walton Foundation, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Netflix founder Reed Hastings, and Teach for America for turning the clock back to 1950 and calling it “reform.”

Indiana Superintendent Tony Bennett is running for re-election. He has raised more than $1 million from supporters of an anti-public school agenda.

He just received $25,000 from a gubernatorial candidate who wants vouchers for private and religious schools with NO accountability.

Way to go in handing out public dollars with zero accountability for their use.

Just more evidence that the voucher advocates no longer even pretend that vouchers will improve education.

Their goal is to destroy public education.

Wake up, parents and citizens of Indiana.

It is not teachers who are in peril. It is the public sector.

It is the public schools of Indiana, once a source of great civic pride, now slated for demolition by a rightwing wrecking crew.

 

A nice summary of a bad week for John White, who was hired to implement Governor Bobby Jindal’s plan to privatize public education in Louisiana.

The blogger has an apt title for the week, referring to a delightful children’s book: John White and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week

Last spring, Jindal pushed through the legislature the nation’s most sweeping voucher plan, hoping to undermine public education.

The legislation encourages charters and enacts a teacher evaluation plan that is tied to test scores and extremely punitive.

If the voucher process is any indication, privatization will move ahead with minimal regulation or quality controls.

Louisiana enacted virtually every piece of ALEC legislation. You might say that the state is the poster child for ALEC.

The state is throwing open the door to for-profit entrepreneurs or anyone who wants a piece of the public schools’ minimum foundation budget

A federal judge will decide whether the state is diverting money that was supposed to support desegregation into the voucher program.

More than half the children in the state are eligible–about 450,000 students–but only 10,000 or so applied.

The schools they will attend are mainly religious, and some lack even the rudiments of a decent education, like a curriculum, classrooms, teachers–the little things like that.

And the Jindal charterization of the state has hardly begun.

White has a herculean task, doing what privatizers like to do: handing public money over to private interests with little if any oversight.

And lots of out-of-state money flowed into Louisiana to make sure that Jindal gained control of the state board so that Jindal got just the guy he wanted to do the dirty work, and all these privatization plans would move forward, along with new contracts for–what else–TFA.

Many people with liberal causes have used change.org to launch petition drives.

In its founding, change.org declared its dedication to progressive values.

Many people were upset when change.org allowed Michelle Rhee to surreptitiously gather signatures on its site. You might sign a petition saying you want great teachers or you think teachers should be paid more, and without your knowledge or consent, you were a member of StudentsFirst. You would never get a notice informing that you had unknowingly “joined.” But you would be counted as a member.

Many were also upset that change.org hosted Stand for Children, which is anti-union, anti-teacher, anti-public education, and pro-corporate.

We thought those lapses were aberrations. But now we find that change.org is opening its doors to anti-union, anti-abortion, pro-corporate advertising. Its progressive veneer has simply disappeared. On October 24, the new policy will take effect. The news was leaked to Jeff Bryant, who wrote about it here.

Of course, that is their right. But beware. Don’t sign any petitions on that site. You never will find out what cause or group has just added your name to its membership rolls.

Just be aware that when they ask you if you support puppies and kittens, you might be signing a petition to give away public lands or to outsource American jobs or to bust a union or to support ALEC.

I have had some good debates with friends and colleagues who support charter schools. I think there is a role for them in meeting needs that public schools cannot meet: charter schools for the autistic, charter schools for dropouts, charter schools are kids who utterly lack motivation. Charters should boast of how many low-performing kids they have recruited, not their test scores. When their tests scores are high, it usually means they are skimming or excluding the very students they should be seeking out. Charters might also be a way to test innovations, but more typically they are boot camps, which is not at all innovative. If they exist to innovate, they should be committed to collaboration with public schools, not competition. But that is not what charter schools today are about. They are about winning. And as this Pennsylvania blogger explains, some are about money.

Charters are Cash Cows

— OCTOBER 22, 2012

Charter schools are cash cows feeding at the public trough. Oh, there are a few good ones here and there, to be sure. But if there was ever any doubt that charter schools have become Big Business, take a look at the list of the largest campaign contributors in Pennsylvania. Three of the top ten on a new “Power Players” report are throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars into state politics to gain favorable legislation for charter schools and we need to be asking why. [Public Source, Power Players report]

Weighing in at #5 is Van Gureghian, who founded Charter School Management Inc. back in 1999 to run a school in Chester, PA, a struggling former industrial town near Philadelphia. Today Gureghian’s company operates 150 charter schools in nine states, and that first school now has half of the district’s student enrollment and is the state’s largest charter school. Gureghian was Gov. Corbett’s single largest campaign donor and served on his education transition team. This is the same guy who is fighting the state’s Right to Know laws to keep from disclosing his salary – which is public knowledge for other public school administrators – while he recently bought two Florida beachfront lots for $28.9 million. He and his wife, another Charter School Management Inc. employee, plan to build a 20,000 square foot “French-inspired Monte Carlo estate.” [Palm Beach Daily News, 2011-11-18; Also see “Soaking the Public”]

At #8 and #10 on the list are Joel Greenberg and Arthur Dantchik. Public Source, which put together the report, notes that these two “act as one when making political contributions,” and that if we “consider them as a contributing team, you must include Jeff Yass,” who would be #11 on this list. Greenberg, Dantchik, and Yass went to college together and are founding partners of Susquehanna International Group, a financial broker-dealer in Philadelphia.

Greenberg is on the board of American Federation for Children, a national group with mega-billionaire backers supporting state vouchers for private school students. Dantchik is on the board of the Institute for Justice, a law firm that promotes school choice and Yass is on the board of the Cato Institute, a think tank dedicated to limited government and free markets. [Public Source, Power Players report] In 2010, these three men started Students First PAC to channel millions of their dollars, plus those from out of state donors, into races of pro-voucher candidates. (For more on the American Federation for Children and the Students First PAC, see “It’s All About the Money, Money, Money”.)

For those of you keeping track, that makes four of Pennsylvania’s biggest campaign donors so far this year with school privatization at the top of their to-do lists. Why? Lest you think these men are dabbling in education for the sake of students, take a closer look at the Big Business of charter schools. Back in August, CNBC interviewed the CEO of a major investment company who clearly explained why charter schools are such a great moneymaker. David Brain heads Entertainment Properties Trust, which owns movie theaters, destination recreation sites, and charter schools in 34 states.

When the interviewer asked why people should add charter schools to their investment portfolios, he replied:

“Well I think it’s a very stable business, very recession-resistant. It’s a very high-demand product. There’s 400,000 kids on waiting lists for charter schools … the industry’s growing about 12-14% a year. So it’s a high-growth, very stable, recession-resistant business. It’s a public payer, the state is the payer … if you do business with states with solid treasuries, then it’s a very solid business.”

The anchor also asked if he could buy one type of real estate asset right now, what would it be, and Brain answered:

“Well, probably the charter school business. We said it’s our highest growth and most appealing sector right now of the portfolio. It’s the most high in demand, it’s the most recession-resistant. And a great opportunity set with 500 schools starting every year. It’s a two and a half billion dollar opportunity set in rough measure annually.” [CNBC, 8-15-12]

Brain also told a nice whopper when the anchor asked him if there was any investment risk due to some public backlash against using taxpayer money to pay for charter schools. He claimed, “Most of the studies have charter schools at even or better than district public education.” Actually, most of the studies have shown the opposite: charter schools consistently rank at even or worse – sometimes much worse – than traditional public schools. For example, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that students in every single Pennsylvania cyber charter school performed “significantly worse” in reading and math than their peers in conventional public schools. [Stanford/CREDO report summary, 2011] That’s a 100% failure rate. (See “Dueling Rallies” for complete details on charter school performance research.)

With such dismal results, investors really ought to be asking why Gov. Corbett’s administration keeps approving new charter school applications. Cyber charters in particular are charging taxpayers far more per student than it actually costs to educate them – to the tune ofone million dollars per day sucked from our public coffers into the pockets of charter school operators. (See “One Million Per Day”) Pennsylvania already has 16 cyber charter schools – including four approved just this past summer – giving us one of the highest concentrations in the country. Yet the Department of Education just scheduled hearings on eight new cyber charter school applications. [Post-Gazette, 10-22-12]

Gary Miron, an education professor at Western Michigan University who studies charter schools, told the Post-Gazette, “Pennsylvania, as far as I know, has the most lucrative funding for virtual schools. It’s very favorable. It doesn’t surprise me more companies and entities want to come there for virtual schooling.” [Post-Gazette, 10-22-12]

Indeed. This is not about doing what is best for students. Charter schools have become investment opportunities for the wealthy and their portfolio managers, businesses that must be protected with favorable legislation bought by strategic campaign contributions. As these charter school operators feed at the public trough, they strip our public schools of desperately needed resources. It’s time to fight back. Public education is a public good, not a cash cow.

If we had a race for the worst state superintendent in the nation, there would be many contenders. One thinks immediately, for example, of Tony Bennett in Indiana or John White in Louisiana.

By worst, I mean someone who has done his best to destroy public education–which is a sacred trust in the hands of the chief state school officer–and to demoralize the teachers who do the daily work of teaching the kids.

One of the top contenders for that odious distinction is Tom Luna of Idaho. Idaho is a small state and it doesn’t usually get a lot of national attention, but Luna has thrust it into the forefront of the national movement to privatize public education.

He was elected with the help of contributions from technology companies. A brilliant investigative report in the Idaho-Stateman last year documented how he raised campaign contributions from the education technology industry and became their darling.

Not being an original thinker, he called his program “Students Come First,” like Joel Klein’s “Children First” and Michelle Rhee’s “Students First.”

Despite a shrinking budget, he bought a laptop for every student and mandated that every student had to take two online courses in order to graduate. A token of appreciation to all those corporations that helped pay for Mr. Luna’s election.

He led a campaign to eliminate collective bargaining and often refers to union members as “thugs.” His reforms, known as the Luna laws, impose merit pay, which has never worked anywhere. He does whatever he can think of to demoralize the teachers of Idaho.

Is he the worst in the nation? There are many other contenders. It’s a close call.

His proposals are up for a vote this year. We will see if the people of Idaho are ready to outsource their children and public schools to for-profit corporations.

[CORRECTION: LUNA IS NOT UP FOR RE-ELECTION UNTIL 2014; HIS PROPOSALS–KNOWN AS THE “STUDENTS COME FIRST” LAWS or PROPS 1, 2, 3–ARE ON THE BALLOT NOVEMBER 6].

A reader in Idaho sent the following information:

An interesting development in Idaho politics is that not a single Democrat supports the “Students Come First” bills, or Props 1,2,3 as they are now commonly referred to, but nearly every Republican does support them, even though many Republican voters don’t. A recent poll was taken that shows props 1,2,3 losing support among voters, the real question is whether that will lead to more Democratic legislators (85/105 Idaho legislators are Republicans). Another interesting development is that the “Vote yes” folks only raised less than half of what the “Vote no” folks did ($500,000 vs $1.3 million), and I’m not really sure why. I think part of it might be that the state is trying to pay very little for the laptops (I think we’re looking for laptops and maintenance for $309/unit) and no company has taken that, and I also think the state is trying to pay half the normal rate for online courses, so for-profit education has held off on contributions.

Pennsylvania legislators were moving to adopt a “charter reform” bill that would have benefited charters mightily.

In response to the loud outcry from supporters of public education, some Republican legislators switched sides at the last minute and the bill died.

There are indeed serious injustices that need to be corrected–like the outrageous over-funding of cyber charters–which cost taxpayers about $1 million a day.

This post explains why the bill failed and why it deserved to fail.

The bill will be back, and so will the supporters of public education.

Keep your eye on Pennsylvania.