Archives for category: Hoax

Peter Greene saw an article in Forbes making the absurd assertion that the problem with public schools is that they have certified teachers. In typical fashion, he demolishes this claim.

The article argues that teachers do not need to be paid well, and they do not need to be certified.

Greene says this is nonsense, to put it mildly.

He points out 18 reasons why the authors are wrong.

Here is the 18th reason:

“18) And it offers the best hope of bringing more capable people into the teaching that all agree is so vital.

“This is the final line of the article, and nothing in it has been proven in any of the lines that came before. Great teachers are somehow born and not made, and they alone can fix everything, and they are apparently distributed randomly throughout the population. Somehow by lowering standards, lowering pay, destabilizing pay, and removing job security, we will attract more of them and flush them out.

“That’s 18 dumb things in one short article. I suppose Forbes could get better articles if they paid less and let anybody write for them.”

Gary Rubinstein assesses the claim that graduates of charter schools have a dramatically high college graduation rate than public school graduates.

He writes:

“On the heels of the latest call by the NAACP for a charter school moratorium, there has been a media blitz started by The 74 about a report called ‘The Alumni’ in which they claim that charter school graduates go on to graduate college at three to five times the rate of low income students who do not attend charter schools.

“Besides being reported in The 74, it has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Daily News.

“The 74 article is written by Richard Whitmire (as is The Daily News Op-Ed) who is known for his biography about Michelle Rhee (haven’t heard much about her lately) and also one about Rocketship Charters (haven’t heard much about them lately).

“The summary of the report says that they have tracked the students at nine charter networks and found that graduates of those charters have between 25% and 50% of those students also graduate college. Since a commonly quoted statistic is that only 9% of low income students graduate college, these networks seem to be getting between three and five times the rate of college completion.

“The major flaw in this report — and they admit this in The 74, but not in The Daily News (The WSJ is behind a paywall, if someone can read it let me know if they address it there) — is that while the 9% statistic is for ALL students who enter schools, these 25% to 50% numbers are only for the students who complete 12th grade at the schools (KIPP is an exception, they use data from students who complete 8th grade — I’ll get to that later.)”

The claim, he says, is a lie because there is no way to verify the data.

A great post, vintage Rubinstein. Read it. This is what happens when a vert thoughtful person has a passionate commitment to evidence and accuracy, not ideology or self-interest.

Please indulge me. I usually read the New York Times every day, and yesterday I could not resist juxtaposing two interesting and weird stories.

This one is a Ripley “Believe It or Not” story about a woman born to a royal family in Burma who was a cross-dresser and left her family to become a warlord and major drug runner, commanding her own private army.

Then there was a story about the Texas State Senate’s determination to pass a law prohibiting transgender people from using the bathroom of his/her choice. Led by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the Rush Limbaugh of Texas, the state senate is ignoring what happened to North Carolina when it passed a similar bill. Major events were canceled, and corporations suspended their plans to expand. Texas has been warned, but the crazies in the senate are hell-bent on keeping transgender people out of the ladies’ rooms. They haven’t expressed concern about the mens’ bathrooms. And they have not brought forward their plan to enforce this law. Will they require everyone to carry a replica of their birth certificate? Will they post a guard at every public restroom, in every school, every airport, every movie theater, every hotel, to check birth certificates?

So this leads me to the question: Which bathroom would Burmese drug runner Olive Yang use if Dan Patrick gets his way and passes his bathroom bill?

And how many major corporations will leave Texas until the bill is withdrawn?

And what are the chances that Republican Speaker of the House Joe Straus will let whacko Dan Patrick have his way?

Wherever there is a bipartisan consensus for charter schools, the Koch brothers see the state as ripe for expanding vouchers. Now they are targeting Colorado, where they have developed a strategic plan for the state.

Leading Democrats, such as wealthy Congressman Jared Polis and former State Senator Michael Johnston, have led the charge for charters and schiool choice (both have announced they are running for the Democratic nomination for governor.) Polis has opened two charter schools and fiercely supports them as a member of the House Education Committee. Johnston, former TFA, introduced legislation in 2011 to make student test scores count for 50% of teachers’ evaluation. The law has been an abject failure, although Johnston claimed it would guarantee that Colorado had great teachers, great principals, great schools.

DFER and Stand for Children have been active in Colorado, laying the groundwork for the Koch brothers.

And now they arrive with a plan to defund public schools and call it “opportunity.”

“COLORADO SPRINGS — In a nondescript office building on the north side of this conservative enclave, more than a dozen volunteers spent hours making calls to educate voters about a new initiative that will allow parents to use taxpayer dollars to send children to private schools.

“At the same time, just miles down the road, the political network behind the effort gathered hundreds of its wealthiest donors at a posh mountainside resort to raise money to support the campaign to remake the education system.

“The confluence of policy and politics epitomized how the conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch flex their organization’s muscle and spread an ideological agenda in states across the nation.

“The value of this network cannot be overstated,” said Stacy Hock, a Koch donor and conservative education advocate in Texas. “The ability to stand on the shoulders of the giant that is this network to make yourself more impactful and strategic changes the game.”

The Koch brothers plot a conservative resistance movement in Colorado Springs strategy session
Koch network to Trump administration: “You are never going to win the war on drugs. Drugs won.”
The phone calls to middle-of-the-road voters and presentation to donors in Colorado last week were part of the Koch network’s six-figure campaign to promote school choice and education savings accounts, or ESAs.

“The effort in Colorado involves the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Libre Initiative, a group focused on Hispanic community outreach. Together the organizations are making calls and sending flyers to voters this summer, two of which promote ESAs as a way to “give families the freedom to select schools, classes and services that fit the unique needs of their kids….

“The Koch network considers Colorado an attractive state for its message because public charter schools are a bipartisan cause. In the 2017 session, lawmakers equalized funding for charter schools with district schools.

“EdChoice, a conservative education advocacy organization aligned with the Kochs, commissioned a survey in 2015 to introduce Colorado to the ESA issue, finding strong support when cast in favorable terms.”

Let’s begin with the stipulation that the lists of “America’s Best High Schools” based on test scores or AP coursetaking encourage schools to game the system and are invalid on their face.

Then, congratulations to Gary Rubinstein! He not only demonstrated that New York City’s KIPP high school gamed the rankings by U.S. News & World Report, but the magazine noticed his critique, decided Gary was right, and dropped that KIPP school from its list.

Gary wrote:

“U.S. News and World Report publishes an annual list of the best high schools based on a metric involving mostly AP tests. Two months ago I noticed something strange when examining the data for a KIPP high school in New York that was ranked 29th in the country and 4th in the state on this list. Though there is just one KIPP high school in New York, there were four KIPP high schools in the rankings. These schools were actually middle schools. One of those schools had 100% of their students passing an AP while the other three had 0%. The only logical explanation for this is that KIPP manipulated their rosters, assigning kids who passed APs to one ‘school’ and kids who didn’t to the other three ‘schools’ even though they were all just part of one high school.”

He now wonders whether all the publications that hailed KIPP’s success will print the correction: Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post; Campbell Brown’s The 74; and the National Review.

Gary writes:

“In my years of blogging and uncovering things like this, this is a nice tangible ‘victory.’ I’m pretty sure that if I had never discovered this discrepancy, this correction would have not happened. KIPP had done the same thing with this school for a few years and have surely been using it in fund raising materials and maybe even grants. In the scheme of things it is a pretty small victory but still worth feeling good about.”

Thank you, Gary. You are a hero of the Resistance to corporate reform. You most certainly belong on the Honor Roll.

Peter Greene explains the hoax at the heart of “personalized learning.”

The appeal is that it is customized just for you. The reality is that it is a standardized algorithm that adjusts to your responses but doesn’t you from Adam or Eve.

The Brand X that we’re supposed to be escaping, the view of education that Personalized Learning is supposed to alter, the toxin for which Personalized Learning is the alleged antidote is an education model in which all students get on the same car of the same train and ride the same tracks to the same destination at the same time. That’s not what’s actually going on in public schools these days, but let’s set that aside for the moment.

Real personalized learning would tear up the tracks, park the train, offer every student a good pair of hiking shoes or maybe a four-wheeler, maybe even a hoverboard, plus a map of the territory (probably in the form of an actual teacher), then let the student pick a destination and a path and manner of traveling.

But techno-personalized learning keeps the track and the train. In the most basic version, we keep one train and one track and the “personalization” is that students get on at different station. Maybe they occasionally get to catch a helicopter that zips them ahead a couple of stops.

But personalized? No.

All over the country, PBS stations are showing anti-public school propaganda in a three-hour series called “School Inc.” This series was paid for by libertarian foundations who want for-profit schools, vouchers, charters, and for-profit teachers, competing for students. The lead funder is the Rose-Mary and Jack Anderson Foundation, which supports radical libertarian causes and acts as a funnel for Donors Trust, which bundles money from the Koch brothers and DeVos family for their favorite causes.

PBS emendation accepting money for the series, which has no opposing views and which was never fact-checked, because it likes to show divergent views.

Really?

Would PBS accept funding to run a three-hour program that was opposed to abortion rights? That argued that homosexuality was a sin? That attempted to prove that climate change was a hoax? That insisted that the Sandy Hook massacre of children and staff never happened? That defended Confederate flags and monuments in public space?

The Network for Public Education encourages you to write an email or call your PBS station. Apparently, some local stations watched the series and decided not to show it. Most, however, are running it without any rebuttal.

Here is my rebuttal, which was seen only in New York City.

Here is my written commentary.

The irony is that these foundations do not believe in public education or public television.

Senator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation to allow Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada, where they are cheaper even though some are made in America. Senator Cory Booker, the faux-progressive, voted with the Republicans to protect the profits of Big Pharma.

“BERNIE SANDERS INTRODUCED a very simple symbolic amendment Wednesday night, urging the federal government to allow Americans to purchase pharmaceutical drugs from Canada, where they are considerably cheaper. Such unrestricted drug importation is currently prohibited by law.

“The policy has widespread support among Americans: one Kaiser poll taken in 2015 found that 72 percent of Americans are in favor of allowing for importation. President-elect Donald Trump also campaigned on a promise to allow for importation.

“The Senate voted down the amendment 52-46, with two senators not voting. Unusually, the vote was not purely along party lines: 13 Republicans joined Sanders and a majority of Democrats in supporting the amendment, while 13 Democrats and a majority of Republicans opposed it.

“One of those Democrats was New Jersey’s Cory Booker, who is considered a rising star in the party and a possible 2020 presidential contender.”

Although Booker voted against DeVos, he supports vouchers and charters, like DeVos.

(Thanks to Arthur Goldstein for the tip.)

*I made a spelling error in original headline and typed Tepublicans. Maybe that was short-hand for Tea Party Republicans.

I confess. I didn’t watch Betsy DeVos testify. I didn’t want to. No one pays me to blog every day, so I have some discretion in how I use my time. What I did instead, which was very taxing, was to watch preview DVDs on the PBS special “School Inc.,” because I have been invited to tape a response for Channel 13, New York City’s PBS station. It is worse than anything you anticipated in terms of distortion, inaccuracies, slander of public schools, and adulation of the free market. Maybe I should have watched DeVos.

Valerie Strauss did watch DeVos. Here is her report.

She made clear that she would not put any limits on for-profit education companies. She recommended virtual charters to an Alabama senator, although even the charter industry has called out online schools for their poor academic results.

And here is a key quote:

“She was asked repeatedly whether private schools that would be part of the administration’s proposed program to fund and study a new voucher program would be subject to federal discrimination and special education laws, and she repeatedly said, “Schools that receive federal funds must follow federal law.””

As our reader Laura Chapman pointed out in a comment, voucher funds are always defended by the assertion that the public money goes to the family, not the school. Tax credits for vouchers go to corporations who pay for vouchers. Every voucher program operates under the fiction that the public money does not go to the school.

The money is laundered through the family or third parties.

So DeVos is cleverly masking the fact that federal law will not apply to schools that receive federal funds.

It is a three-card Monte game.

The Washington Post published a deeply researched expose today about the “secret universe” of “charities” that fueled the election of Donald Trump.

Please understand before reading this that the Internal Revenue Service classifies organizations for tax purposes as 501(c)3 or 501(c)4. When Anthony Cody and I formed the Network for Public Education in 2013, we learned that we had to get IRS approval to raise money. Contributions to a (c)3 are tax-deductible. Contributions to a (c)4 are not tax-deductible. If we were a (c)3, we had to have broad charitable purposes and could not engage in any political or partisan activities, although we could lobby for legislation that met the purposes of the organization. To engage in political action or endorsements, we had to create a (c)4, with its own board. The (c)4 can be completely political, lobby for legislation, endorse candidates, but contributions are not tax-deductible. We hired a lawyer, followed the rules, and we often check with the lawyer to make sure we are always in compliance.

That is why we have two organizations. The Network for Public Education is a (c)3. Contributions are tax-deductible. It advocates for the improvement of public schools. It does not endorse candidates. We also created an organization called the Network for Public Education Action Fund, which is a (c)4. Contributions to it are not tax-deductible. It endorses candidates in states where we are allowed to do so, and endorses referenda.

As you read the article about the Shadow Universe, you will see references to foundations that are nakedly partisan. Yet, they are (c)4 tax shelters for the wealthy. They give only to rightwing causes that are unabashedly political, yet have (c)3 stats. You will see references to “charities” that are not charitable but political. They wage war against the left. They consider climate change a hoax. They think America’s universities are controlled by Communists. They think America is about to be taken over by “Islamofascists.” They want the federal government to spend billions on vouchers to remove children from public schools. When the IRS tried to crackdown on political organizations that masqueraded as charities, Republicans in Congress angrily denounced the IRS for going after conservative “charities,” and the IRS backed off. Now those “charities” have put Trump in the White House and captured the Republican Party.

So, one aspect of the article is the way the IRS code has been flagrantly ignored by rightwing activists, first, to shield family fortunes (like Bradley, Scaife, DeVos, Mercer, and many more) from taxation, but second, to enable rightwing political activists to raise tax-exempt contributions from the rich, who are always seeking ways to avoid paying for the government that protects them.

The article is also important because it exposes a little-known world of rightwing activism. It explains the origins of the ideologues on the fringe right who have seized control of the Republican Party.

You will understand Trump better if you read this article. His election represents the victory of a militant, angry, bitter group of extremists. They don’t give a hoot about working people. Trump is the point of the spear of a well-organized, well-financed powerful movement.