Archives for category: For-Profit

Thanks to Thomas J. Mertz,  who sent me this item from his regular blog.

This post contains Samuel Gompers’ views on the importance of public education for working people and for democracy.

In Gompers’ time, the rich took care of their children, as they always had, with private tutors, boarding schools, and private academies.

The role of public education was and should be to make possible a good public school for all of the people. Its goal is not to raise test scores but to enable the fullest development of children and young people and to prepare each to participate as citizens in our society in the fullest sense of the word.

Public education made education a right, not a privilege. Be it noted that at every step in the expansion of public education, such as the opening of high schools, there was opposition, typically from industrialists, business leaders, and others who did not see why their tax money should be used to educate other people’s children. They were willing to pay for basic literacy, which future workers needed, but they saw no point in paying for high school and “frills.”

Let’s mark this Labor Day by noting that we are today in the midst of a movement for privatization of public education unlike anything we have ever seen in our history.

In the past, the wealthiest elements of society railed about paying for education and spoke out against expanding opportunity to others, but there has never before been an organized effort to turn public schools over to private hands on the scale that exists today.

Never before did the wealthiest people find allies in rightwing think tanks and at the highest levels of both political parties for policies that would eliminate neighborhood community schools, that would give public school funding to private management, and that permit for-profit entrepreneurs to open publicly-funded schools.

If education were privatized, you can be sure that the wealthy will continue to get the best for their children, and everyone else will be left to rummage through the offerings of private vendors, or to seek a school that will accept their child.

And with the loss of public education will come the death of an institution whose overriding purpose was to prepare the next generation of citizens. And  as we are already seeing in cities around the nation, privatization shatters communities, when the one institution that held them together and reinforced communal ties is handed over to the marketplace.

UPDATE: Several members of the Indiana Tea Party have written to say that they oppose Tony Bennett because of his support for Common Core standards. Jeb Bush supports Common Core, so of course, Tony Bennett supports them. And so do the Jeb Bush “Chiefs for Change.” But the Tea Party does not! Read the comments. The Tea Party supports local control.

So, let’s say that Tony Bennett’s desire to take control of local districts is just a power grab by a far-right politician.

Tony Bennett (not the singer) is State Commissioner of Education in Indiana.

He follows the ALEC/Jeb Bush script in everything he does.

Vouchers, charters, reducing or eliminating standards to become a teacher, for-profit schools, for-profit online “schools.”

Whatever ALEC wants, Bennett delivers.

He recently announced that he wants the power to take control of entire school districts, if in his judgement they are failing.

He says he believes in local control. He doesn’t.

He believes in power.

He believes in privatization.

Thats part of the ALEC script too.

If you read this article about how online companies bought American education, you would not be at all shocked or surprised by the scandal in Maine. There, the state commissioner of education is following the instructions of Jeb Bush’s education advisor and implementing the ALEC model legislation to change the laws to bring in for-profit online corporations.

Corporations will make millions. Many children in Maine will get a lousy education, and the taxpayers in Maine will be ripped off.

That’s known these days as reform.

Maine’s State Commissioner of Education Stephen Bowen went to San Francisco to hear Jeb Bush tout the glories of for-profit online charter schools. Jeb Bush’s foundation paid for the trip. The commissioner met with Jeb’s chief education aide, Patricia Levesque, whose company lobbies for the online corporations. She promised help.

This is what the Maine Sunday Telegram found after getting access to public records of the correspondence:

Bowen was preparing an aggressive reform drive on initiatives intended to dramatically expand and deregulate online education in Maine, but he felt overwhelmed.

“I have no ‘political’ staff who I can work with to move this stuff through the process,” he emailed her from his office.

Levesque replied not to worry; her staff in Florida would be happy to suggest policies, write laws and gubernatorial decrees, and develop strategies to ensure they were implemented.

“When you suggested there might be a way for us to get some policy help, it was all I could do not to jump for joy,” Bowen wrote Levesque from his office.

“Let us help,” she responded.

So was a partnership formed between Maine’s top education official and a foundation entangled with the very companies that stand to make millions of dollars from the policies it advocates.

In the months that followed, according to more than 1,000 pages of emails obtained by a public records request, the commissioner would rely on the foundation to provide him with key portions of his education agenda. These included draft laws, the content of the administration’s digital education strategy and the text ofGov. Paul LePage’s Feb. 1 executive order on digital education.

A Maine Sunday Telegram investigation found large portions of Maine’s digital education agenda are being guided behind the scenes by out-of-state companies that stand to capitalize on the changes, especially the nation’s two largest online education providers.

K12 Inc. of Herndon, Va., and Connections Education, the Baltimore-based subsidiary of education publishing giant Pearson, are both seeking to expand online offerings and to open full-time virtual charter schools in Maine, with taxpayers paying the tuition for the students who use the services.

This is good news. 

Some of the school districts in Wisconsin are canceling their contracts with for-profit vendors of online schooling.

Last year, four out of the state’s five biggest online schools were run by for-profit corporations.

This year, the number is down to two, because school officials concluded the vendors had a conflict of interest: Their first obligation is to their shareholders, not the students.

The districts will run the virtual schools without the for-profit corporations.

A teacher in New York City wrote to tell me that he worked in the dairy industry for many years before becoming a teacher.

When he read about Jeb Bush touting the virtues of choosing schools the way we choose milk, he laughed.

Did you know, he wrote, that a small number of big corporations control the dairy industry. No matter what label is on the carton, the odds are that you are buying from agri-business, not a small producer. There are really only two kinds of milk–skim and cream–and all the others are variations, built from one or the other.

In many places, you think you are choosing, but all the milk comes from the same corporation.

The illusion of choice.

That’s not what gets me, though. What gets me is that Jeb’s argument is intended to dissolve any sense of public responsibility for basic services.

Some things ought not be privatized.

Jeb Bush spoke to the Republican National Convention on his favorite subject: how to save American education by privatizing it.

Bush said that choosing a school should be like buying milk.

This came from a newspaper report:

    “Everywhere in our lives, we get the chance to choose,” he said in aprepared version of his remarks sent to reporters. “Go down any supermarket aisle – you’ll find an incredible selection of milk. You can get whole milk, 2% milk, low-fat milk or skim milk. Organic milk, and milk with extra Vitamin D. There’s flavored milk- chocolate, strawberry or vanilla – and it doesn’t even taste like milk. They even make milk for people who can’t drink milk.”
    “Shouldn’t parents have that kind of choice in schools?” Bush said.

He agrees with Condoleeza Rice that education is “the civil rights issue of our time.”

But how can this be?

Is shopping for milk a civil right? How are these comparable?

This is not a good analogy.

Isn’t public education a public responsibility? Isn’t it a public good? How can it be compared to something as trivial as shopping for milk?

You can see where he is going with this analogy. An end to public education, a welcome mat for the privatizers, the for-profit schools, the for-profit online corporations.

Anyone is welcome to produce their own brand of milk, funded by taxpayers.

They can buy the high-priced milk, if they can afford it. They can buy the plain milk, or if they are poor, they can buy the rancid milk. It’s their choice.

Needless to say, Bush said nothing about the research showing that charter schools and voucher schools get similar results to public schools; and that the online for-profit schools get decidedly worse results.

But this is not about the kids. It is about letting the free market have its way with the kids.

 

A couple of weeks ago, I invited Stephen Dyer of Innovation Ohio to write a post explaining the Cleveland Plan.

He did that here.

I thought the post was fair, balanced, and informative.

Terry Ryan of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, based jointly in Dayton and Washington, D.C., responded to Dyer and criticized me for printing the post.

When I visited Cleveland earlier this year to address the Cleveland City Club, what stuck me was that it is a sad, sad city. Except for sports stadiums, it feels abandoned. The downtown is small and has many empty commercial buildings. Neighborhoods have boarded up buildings and empty lots where buildings used to be. I was struck by how impoverished the city is, how disheartened the teachers are, and how inadequate is the response of state and city leaders to the collapse of this once-proud city.

According to NAEP, the district consists of 100% poor children.

About the time I was in Cleveland, the Cleveland Plan was announced, and all I heard about was merit pay and charters. I haven’t seen any evidence that this is a winning strategy for a deeply impoverished city. Charters in Ohio don’t get better results than regular public schools; many are in academic emergency or academic watch. I wanted to understand more, which is why I asked Dyer to explain the Cleveland Plan. The plan has been warmly embraced by Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson (D) and Governor John Kasich (R).

Just a bit of background. I was a founding director of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. I left the board in 2009. One of the reasons that I became disillusioned with charter schools was that I saw several of the charters in Ohio sponsored by TBF flounder and fail. My experience at TBF pushed me away from the nostrums that are now so popular on the right and with some Democrats, such as Arne Duncan. I came to see charters as part of a wider effort to privatize public education.

Two things I want to add:

First, I know Terry Ryan and always found him to be fair-minded, so I was disappointed that he took issue with my invitation to Stephen Dyer to write on an issue about which he is deeply knowledgeable. I previously asked Terry’s colleague Mike Petrilli to write a blog to explain why some conservatives support the Common Core standards (he was too busy). I don’t clear my decisions with anyone. I was also surprised that Terry thinks I am less committed to local democracy when I question charters, which transfer public funds to private corporations and replace public control of public education. It is because I believe in democracy that I am disturbed by the rapid growth of charters, which erode the democratically-controlled public sector. The growth of charters is the leading edge of a free market in education, and Terry knows it.

Second, unlike Dyer, I am unalterably opposed to for-profit schools. I think they are an abomination, and moreso in Ohio than in most places, where the for-profit sector is unusually rapacious and greedy and uses its profits to expand and generate more profits, not good schools.

Jersey Jazzman parses the latest article by Joel Klein, who frankly admits that the real goal of reform is to open up the education system to entrepreneurs and investors. As more start-ups produce new products and innovations, schools are sure to benefit, he predicts.

Klein also thinks that the R&D cycle for schools is much too slow. Randomized trials in education take years, but Apps for cellphones can be improved in a matter of months without all that slow processing of information.

This appalls Jersey Jazzman. He writes:

It’s really amazing that Klein is comparing the education of a child with a smartphone app. If you buy an app, it costs you maybe 99 cents; if it doesn’t work, you trash it. When you’re a school district, however, you spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of public dollars on curricula that affect every student in your district. If you buy a piece of junk that doesn’t work, you’ve abused the trust of both the taxpayers and the children.

Don’t you think maybe it’s worth taking some time to get these things right?

A reader said he was shocked, shocked by a post that linked to an article that spoke disparagingly of Governor Bobby Jindal and State Commissioner of Education John White. He thought it was “uncivil” to refer to them in disrespectful language.

This teacher from Louisiana disagrees. Since there aren’t many places in Louisiana where his or her views may be expressed in print, I am happy to print them here.

But they are thieves, vandals, liars and profiteers here in Louisiana!

They are also people I disagree with. I disagree with them because I disagree with rating teachers on student test scores. I disagree with them on ACT 54 and value added.

I disagree with them when our Governor and education secretary intentionally ignore the facts and twist the data to spread lies about Louisiana teachers, students and schools.

I disagree with ignoring the real issues of poverty, school quality, teacher qualifications and standardized testing. I

disagree with elected public officials lying, cheating and profiting from the destruction of the lives of the children of our state.

I come here for the discussions, I come to hear people express the truth and if what is happening here is not civil discourse, (I think it is quite civil for the most part and the occasional attacks are quickly rebutted or patiently ignored) then I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what civil discourse is and should discuss if the time for statesmanship has passed in this battle and it is time to change strategy?

I sometimes feel as if teachers are prisoners of this war and need the allies to arrive; I just do not know who the allies are. I thought they would be parents, education program professors, student teachers still in school, the Wongs, NIH scientists, associations like ACSD, NSTA, NTMA, Kaplans and others who write all the books, journals, seminars we attend and buy and programs we use.

If they run an organization for professional teachers and there are no more professional teachers who do they think their membership will be? The graduate schools of education, doctoral programs and certification providers. Why are they silent? All the experts we go to listen to at conferences and national meetings, the employees in the state departments of education(surely they believe what they do is important?) school board members, PTAs, PTOs and governmental organizations like NASA, NOAA, US Geological Survey, and hundreds of other agencies whose resources and outreach we use.

What about the United States Military branches who are constantly short of qualified, educated, diploma holding troops? Does the Department of Defense intend to recruit graduates of virtual schools, students from charters taught by people who are not certified and maybe have college degrees?

Do they want to depend on the for profit companies who are even now submitting their applications for Louisiana’s Course Choice program intended to remove even more students from Louisiana public high schools. Will these programs free of accountability and totally opaque to the parents and community produce men and women with the skills and commitment for national defense?

Do they not see that the destruction of public schools will eventually make them obsolete? Do they not all have a stake in collaboratively helping teachers make our schools the best and able to meet the needs of the children we serve?