Leonie Haimson has a warning for the parents and educators of Oakland:
Watch out Oakland! The Gates Foundation gave the City Fund $10 M to privatize what’s left of your public schools https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2018/07/OPP1191868
Recently the Education Writers Association Blog posted a “debate” between distinguished economist Helen Ladd of Duke University and charter advocate Robin Lake of the Center for Reinventing Public Education about whether charter schools were harming public schools financially. Ladd had completed a study of the amount of money that districts in North Carolina had lost to charter schools. Gates-funded CPRE exists to sell charters and portfolio districts.
Jane Nylund, an Oakland public school parent, sent the following comment to the EWA:
“As a supporter of public schools, and as a parent who has experienced firsthand the financial damage done to portfolio districts like ours in Oakland, it is disappointing but not surprising to see how the authors of this debate on financial impact to districts fail or simply ignore the fact that charter and district populations are different.
“Clearly, this debate was framed around the myth that charters do more with less, when in fact, they do less with less. District school students cost more because of higher levels of special education (which CRPE conveniently leaves out), as well as higher ELL and FRPL in many cases. District schools also provide food, transportation, after-school programs, and enrichment programs such as art, music, and sports. District schools also value wraparound services such as health clinics, on-site nursing care, psychologists, and counselors. Charter schools aren’t required to provide any of this, nor are they required to have experienced teachers to educate the neediest kids.
“So in summary, charters take the cheapest kids to educate, and then unfairly compare the cost to districts which provide many important services for ALL kids. Anecdotally, the $57M that our district has lost to the 40+ charters that have opened here has impacted our district to the point where they have decided to eliminate 50% of our sports programs that serve our district children.
“There is no debate, here. That is a fact. Please do your research next time and use a different source than CRPE if you still feel the need to “debate” the financial impact of all this disruption. CRPE is front and center of the privatization movement that has caused so much financial misery in Oakland. “Nimble” is code for school closures and teacher layoffs, so that more unaccountable charters can have our district buildings. “Sticky costs” is code for experienced teachers, which CRPE wants to classify as variable costs ala Milton Friedman.
“CRPE would like nothing more than to see “nimble” districts hire and fire cheap teaching labor at will; helps get rid of those “sticky costs”, and also to close down our schools to keep us nice and “nimble”. Going forward, impress us with a well-balanced debate complete with complete, accurate, well-documented, unbiased information. That’s a lot to ask, isn’t it?”
In recent weeks, Oakland has been roiled by a charter school scandal. The principal of a Gulen charter school left for Australia, with $450,000 in severance pay. Board members say they didn’t realize that his contract allowed for three years pay as severance.
Gulen charter schools always deny that they are Gulen charter schools. They claim to be independent. Others, however, know they are Gulen schools because most or all of the board members are Turkish, most of the staff are Turkish teachers working on visas, and most of the contracts are awarded to Turkish firms.
A few years back, “60 Minutes” did a special in which a teacher alleged that he was required to remit 40% of his salary as payment to the Gulen movement. Fethullah Gulen is an imam from Turkey who lives in seclusion in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania. He was an ally of Recip Erdogan, the strongman who rules Turkey with an iron hand, but then they had a falling-out. Erdogan blames Gulen for an attempted coup and wants the U.S. to extradite him. The U.S. refuses. Meanwhile, Gulen has oversight of nearly 200 charter schools across the U.S. that have replaced public schools.
The former principal of the Oakland BayTech charter school admitted that the school is a Gulen charter and that the school turned over large sums of taxpayers’ money to the Gulen headquarters.
This is the first time, to my knowledge, that a leader of a Gulen school admitted that the school was part of the Gulen network.
Caprice Young, the first CEO of the California Charter Schools Association, took charge of the Magnolia charter chain, a Gulen chain, when it was in financial distress, and she too denies that the Gulen schools are Gulen schools. But most of those who do not work for a Gulen charter acknowledge that Gulen charters are Gulen charters and rely heavily on Turkish teachers who use special HB-1 visas.
What is remarkable in the Oakland BayTech story is that the principal said, “Yes, we are a Gulen charter. Yes, we do give kickbacks to Fethullah Gulen.”
Hatipoglu denies that he stole from BayTech or altered his contract. But the former principal said all the allegations about BayTech’s links to the Gülen movement are true.
Public records support some of Hatipoglu’s claims.
“The school gave Turkish teachers employment because the school applies for their visas, and when they give donations, they get to work,” said Hatipoglu. “I told [BayTech’s board] I’d no longer do this because there have been so many allegations, and the Turkish government is looking into it.”
Hatipoglu is one of the first high-level administrators of a Gülen school to describe the ways the movement allegedly extracts money from the many charter schools its followers operate.
The Gülen movement is led by an elderly Turkish imam named Fethullah Gülen who lives in exile in Pennsylvania. Gülen and his thousands of followers around the world have been labeled terrorists by the Turkish government. In recent years, Turkish intelligence agents have fanned out across at least 18 nations to spy on, and sometimes seize, Gülenists and take them back to Turkey where they are jailed and tortured, according to recent reports in The New York Times and other media.
Critics of the Gulen movement are called “racists” or anti-Islamic. Critics of Gulen are routinely assailed as “anti-Islamic” but Erdogan is Islamic, so no one can say that all his critics are biased against his religion.
I am not biased against Gulen or his religion. I think that it is ridiculous to outsource American public schools to representatives of a foreign entity, whether it is Spain, the Netherlands, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, or Nigeria. Are we not capable in this country of running our own public schools? If one of the major purposes of public education is to teach citizenship, how can that responsibility be outsourced?
Recently we learned that the principal of the Bay Tech Charter School in Oakland gave himself a generous severance package of $450,000, then left for Australia.
Bay Tech is a Gulen School, connected to the reclusive Imam Fethullah Gulen, who lives in seclusion in Pennsylvania while overseeing one of the largest charter chains in the U.S. You can tell a Gulen school by the disproportionate number of Tirkish people on its board and teaching staff. The repressive autocrat Erdogan in Turkey wants to extradite Gulen, claiming j
He fomented a failed rebellion against the government. Critics of Gulen believe he uses the money he extracts from his charter chain to subsidize his movement. I don’t know much about Turkish politics, but I wonder why Turkish citizens are taking control of American public schools, whose first obligation is to teach the duties of American citizenship.
California taxpayers are very generous indeed to those who work in the charter sector.
Now it turns out that the school has been forcing students to pay for their graduation gowns, which is illlegal, and requiring parents to buy tickets for the graduation ceremonies, which is also illegal.
You see, it’s simple. In California, laws are written to regulate public schools, not charter schools. The most powerful lobby in the state is the California Charter Schools Association, and it fights any regulation or accountability or even prohibition of conflicts of interest. And to top it off, Governor Jerry Brown vetoes any legislation that might hold charters accountable or block conflicts of interest. So charters are free not to hold open meetings, free to keep their records secret, free to give contracts to relatives, because Governor Brown protects them from transparency.
What a sad stain on an otherwise great legacy.
The Bay Area Technology School, a charter school in Oakland, California, was thrown into chaos and confusion when the principal suddenly resigned and left the country amid a financial investigation.
The school is believed to be part of the Gulen charter network associated with the reclusive imam Fethullah Gulen, who lives in seclusion in the Poconos Mountains of Pennsylvania, because of the unusual number of Turkish board members.
Just before the end of the last school year, the principal of Oakland’s Bay Area Technology School, Hayri Hatipoglu, suddenly resigned. At least four other senior staff and two of the charter school’s five board members also abruptly quit. As a result, the organization was thrown into chaos. And then Hatipoglu disappeared. According to several sources, he left the country with his family for Australia, where he is a citizen.
Afterwards, the Oakland Unified School District, which is responsible for overseeing the BayTech charter school, opened an investigation. BayTech’s three remaining board members also hired an independent party to carry out their own internal review.
While OUSD and BayTech have both attempted to keep the mini-crisis under wraps, the Express has learned that BayTech’s three remaining board members are accusing Hatipoglu of defrauding the school. They allege that Hatipoglu surreptitiously changed his employment contract to provide himself with three years’ worth of severance pay totaling about $450,000, an unusually large sum for a small school with an annual budget of approximately $3 million. His previous contract provided for only six months of severance pay, a standard in the education sector.
“We believe he changed his contract,” said BayTech board member Fatih Dagdelen in a recent interview. “According to his contract, he’d get paid a six-months salary if he resigned, but all of a sudden his contract said he’d get paid two-and-a-half years further.”
Remaining board members suspect fraud.
In an unusual and unsolicited email to the Express sent on June 28, Hatipoglu wrote that the school’s Turkish board members conspired to punish him for his decision to break ties with a Southern California-based nonprofit. The nonprofit, Accord Institute, happens to be controlled by the followers of a powerful Turkish imam who leads a global Islamic political force called the Gülen movement.
Founded in the 1970s by the religious leader Fethullah Gülen, the Gülen movement is an Islamic-inspired social and political force that globalized as its followers immigrated to Europe, Australia, and the United States. The Turkish government considers the Gülen movement a terrorist organization because its members helped organize the 2016 coup attempt against President Recep Erdogan, and Erdogan has ordered thousands of Gülenists jailed. (The U.S. government, however, does not classify the Gülen movement as a terrorist organization.) Fethullah Gülen currently lives in self-exile in Pennsylvania, but he’s considered one of the most powerful men in Turkish politics. His followers also set up and operate one of the largest chains of charter schools in the U.S. BayTech is one of these schools.
Might I suggest that these events are evidence that public schools that are funded by taxpayers should be subject to public supervision and oversight–not by private and unaccountable boards– and should be staffed by certified teachers and other staff? Charter schools in California operate without any accountability or transparency, which is an open invitation to rob taxpayers.
Jane Nylund is a parent activist in Oakland, California, trying to stave off a charter takeover of the school district.
The charter wolf that’s supposed to guard and hunt with us in lean times? That wolf? He’s flipped you on your back and is now tearing at your throat. And who is the dominant one now?
I admit, I still use the privacy-sucking, venom-spreading, kitty-loving social media platform that is Facebook. It makes it easy to stay connected with friends and issues that I care about. Imagine to my surprise when one recent morning, this video pops up on my Facebook feed. Let’s see what behind Door #1?
Ok, a flattering piece of advertising from the newly-created OaklandCharters.org (it was sponsored content) on Kimi Kean, from Aspire. Given the recent controversy regarding Aspire, is the timely appearance of this ad just a happy coincidence? Don’t think so. Maybe just a well-timed piece of Aspire marketing/branding? Probably.
Around the same time, this article came out from the East Bay Express. Now, let’s see what’s behind Door #2?
In the Door #1 video, it poses this question, “How can Oakland Charters help all our public schools, district and charter?” Um, by threatening a lawsuit? If that’s their idea of what collaboration means for OUSD, then please, no more help necessary, thanks very much.
So which example honestly portrays the true nature of whether Oakland charters and district schools can collaborate together? Think hard before you answer. Door #1 or Door #2? My vote goes to Door #2. But that’s just me.
The worst thing about this latest episode is that it goes beyond emotional arguments and and name-calling. It is the subversion of the democratic process. That the collective “we” would allow Aspire/CCSA to intimidate any elected board into postponing needed legislation is unacceptable, but not entirely unpredictable in the Age of the Orange One Who Shall Not Be Named. The board has a right (don’t they?) to draft any piece of legislation that it wants, and it is scary when the charter schools are given so much power that they can bully and threaten a democratically-elected board into backing down from doing their job. I’m sure there’s more going on behind the scenes, but this incident makes it even more critical that both the OUSD board and the Oakland City Council know exactly what they are dealing with and who is behind it. That would be Door #2. Even more enlightening is that Reed Hastings, the founder of Aspire and hater of school boards everywhere, is probably cheering the loudest at this point. The idea that CCSA/Aspire made the school board blink is, in his mind, a small but significant step towards eliminating the school board entirely. He’s loving this stuff. I, for one, did not participate in the democratic process only to have it dismantled by a guy like Reed Hastings. He is simply one of many in a long line of corporate billionaire ed-reformers who has made it clear that he’s no friend to public education. This is an article from 2016, but you get the idea…
The Battle of Hastings: What’s Behind the Netflix CEO’s Fight to Charterize Public Schools?
I hope that going forward, both the OUSD board and the Oakland City Council understand the degree of propaganda put forth by those who will stop at nothing to get what they want, including trampling on the rights of the citizens who elected them, regardless of what kind of school their children attend (or not). I will also reiterate that this discussion has nothing to do with Ms. Kean’s clear passion and dedication to Aspire. But everyone who has voted for members of either the OUSD board or the Oakland City Council has a reasonable expectation for democratic representation and should resist any effort to interfere with that representation. Don’t allow CCSA and its backers to erode that responsibility. We have too much of that nonsense going on in the rest of the country already.
John Thompson, teacher and historian, has been investigating the track record of Superintendents “trained” by the unaccredited Broad Foundation.
He writes:
Across the nation, educators have seen the harm done to public education by Broad Academy superintendents. But what do we see when we take a step back and think through their patterns of behavior? And what do we see when looking at Oakland, for instance, where four Broad graduates have run the district? When Broad focuses so intently on one school system, what does the record of its leaders say about education “reform?”
Perhaps the most powerful indictment of an Oakland-connected Broadie, Antwan Wilson, was written by conservative reformer Max Eden, who is one of the many new critics of the data-driven micromanaging which Broad exemplifies. This is crucial because more and more reformers are acknowledging that their accountability-driven theories have failed; apparently, these corporate reformers are now gambling everything on choice, and placing their bets on charters that don’t face the oversight that once was contemplated by many neoliberal reformers.
And that is the first obvious pattern which emerged from Oakland. Before the first Broad manager (Randy Ward) was appointed, Oakland had 15 charters. Six years later, after Oakland experienced three Broad superintendents, it had 34. By the time Antwan Wilson left, the district had 44. As was explained in 2016 by the New York Times Motoko Rich, Wilson faced “a rebellion by teachers and some parents against his plan to allow families to use a single form to apply to any of the city’s 86 district-run schools or 44 charter campuses, all of which are competing for a shrinking number of students.” The likely scenario was that the common application form would result in a New Orleans-style charter portfolio model.
Second, the Oakland Broad experience provides another example about the way that their corporate reformers are untroubled by behaviors that most people see as scandalous. Its four Broad leaders all came with a history of dubious behaviors, or when they left they were caught up in questionable activities.
Vincent Matthews (Broad Class of 2006) had been the principal of a Edison Charter Academy in Noe Valley which had been in danger of losing its charter because it had been criticized for pushing out black students with low test scores. Kimberly Statham (2003) had resigned as chief academic officer of the Howard County Schools following allegations of a grade changing scandal involving her daughter.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/incoming-sf-schools-superintendent-takes-measured-stance-charters/
http://www.baltimoresun.com/bs-mtblog-2007-10-where_are_they_now_kimberly_a-story.html
Randy Ward (2003) left Oakland for San Diego where he resigned, after being placed on administrative leave. The San Diego County Office of Education had been thrown into turmoil as a forensic audit examined “concerns related to certain expenditures and compensation” for top education officials.
I’d add an observation about one controversy involving Michelle Fort-Merrill, “a close confidant to former superintendent Ward,” who earned a salary of $161,000. A whistle-blower won a civil lawsuit after accusing Fort-Merrill and others of “playing favorites with public education money by awarding lucrative legal contracts to friends.” He successfully claimed that his due process rights were violated.
When Fort-Merrill was terminated, she sued saying her due process rights were violated. Isn’t it hypocritical for corporate reformers to use charter expansions and data-driven evaluations for an all-out assault on educators’ due process rights while using those rights to protect their huge salaries?
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/sdut-tensions-rise-at-county-office-of-education-2016jul14-story.html
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/sd-me-county-schools-audit-20170714-story.html
https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2017/mar/02/ticker-lawsuit-top-lawsuit-office-education/#
Only after Antwan Wilson left Oakland and became Washington D.C.’s chancellor, did his full record become apparent. As Valerie Strauss noteds “It was no secret that when Wilson departed the Oakland Unified School District 2½ years after arriving, he left a budget deficit of about $30 million behind.” But subsequent analyses showed:
While Wilson was superintendent in Oakland, the district overspent its budget in some areas, but spent substantially below budgeted amounts in other categories, according to data from the Board of Education. During the 2016-2017 school year, $10.4 million was budgeted for “classified supervisors and administrators” while $22.2 million was spent, according to the Board of Education. In the same year, $21.4 million was budgeted for professional and consulting services, but $28.2 million was spent.
Wilson spent huge amounts of money, creating new, unbudgeted positions and he paid more than what was customary. Strauss noted, “In 2013, before Wilson arrived in Oakland, only four administrators earned more than $200,000; two years later, at least 26 did.”
But Wilson spent less on books and supplies for classrooms than was budgeted. In 2015-2016, Strauss recalls, “$18.6 million was budgeted, but only $12.3 million was spent, according to board data. In 2016-2017, $20.1 million was budgeted for books and other school supplies, but only $6.8 million was spent.”
Wilson was forced to resign in D.C. after violating rules when transferring his daughter to one of the city’s most desirable high schools. This followed a Washington Post report that “an internal investigation has uncovered signs of widespread enrollment fraud” at a desirable school.
And these violations were revealed about the time that it was learned that Wilson had been warned of the Ballou High School graduation scandal. Moreover, these revelations followed Washington Post discovery that “the dramatic decrease in school suspension rates was also fake.”
In other words, Wilson, the fourth Broad superintendent of Oakland, found himself in a very similar situation in D.C., being the third in the line of corporate reformers that began with Michelle Rhee. My sense is that the mess he helped create in Oakland illustrates a pattern which is similar to the one that was started by Michelle Rhee. Even if Broad superintendents were not so cavalier about violating the norms of honest behsvior, their data-driven mentality would still create inevitable scandals. Plus, the more that Broad and other corporate reformers double-down on a single district, the more damage will become too serious to be covered up any longer.
For instance, D.C.’s data-driven, competition-driven reforms created “a Culture of Passing and Graduating Students.” A review of FY16-17 DCPS graduates found that 34.% of students graduated with the assistance of policy violations.
The unraveling of D.C.’s claims of transformational success is crucial because it was once the heart of the Billionaires Boys Club’s vision for American schools. Nobody dared to claim that Oakland was a great success, but as the Motoko Rich’s article articulates, it became the “Heart of Drive to Transform Urban Schools.”
Not only did Broad train four of Oakland’s superintendents, but:
It has granted about $6 million for staff development and other programs over the last decade. The Broad Center, which runs the superintendents’ academy, has subsidized the salaries of at least 10 ex-business managers who moved into administrative jobs at the district office.
Broadies may have had “modest success in raising student achievement” but in the environment they created there is no reason to believe that those “achievement” gains are real. It failed to solve the district’s financial problems, and it dramatically expanded charters.
So, what is next?
Broad has been helping to fund the campaigns to elect its corporate reformers in elections throughout California. Its failure to improve Los Angeles, Oakland, and other districts is interpreted as more evidence against public education norms. Rather than admit that their social engineering has failed, Broad et. al are doubling down on the edu-politics of destruction.
Martin Levine has become one of my favorite writers on education. He writes for NonProfit Quarterly (free online) and other publications. He really understands that privatization is about “me first, to hell with the rest of you.”
Here is his commentary on the recent Gordon Lafer study of the fiscal impact of charters on the public schools they leave behind.
Oakland is a textbook example of a district that is being systematically hollowed out by the proliferation of charter schools. Oakland has lurched from deficit to deficit, while controlled for years by Broadie superintendents, who encouraged the destruction of the district by charters.
He writes:
A recent look at public education in Oakland raises important questions about whether maximizing choice comes at the cost of equity.
Choice advocates have said all students would benefit from maximizing a parent’s ability to choose their child’s school. The introduction of independent charter schools, they believe, harnesses market forces to reward better schools and ultimately force poor schools to close. Following this logic, we will be left with better schools. But while charter schools can focus only on the students who choose their programs, traditional school districts remain responsible for all of the children in their districts. When funding follows each student to their school of choice, those choosing to remain in public schools are finding themselves resource-starved. Overall, educational equity and school choice may not be able to coexist.
Charter schools are about what is best for “me.” Public schools are about what is best for all.
In the age of Trump, individualism trumps the common good.
Tom Ultican has been writing a series of posts about the “Destroy Public Education Movement,” a phrase coined by Professor Jim Scheurich of Indiana University, who has been documenting this vile effort to privatize public schools.
In this post, Ultican writes about current events in Oakland, where the school board seems to be cooperating with the demise of the district.
He writes:
“A “Systems of Schools” plan has been introduced by the destroy public education (DPE) forces in Oakland, California. The plan basically posits that with 30 percent of students in charter schools, the system has become inefficient. Therefore, the school board needs to review resources and close schools in areas with too many seats and overlapping programs.
“However, since Oakland’s school board has no authority over charter schools it is only public schools that can be closed or downsized unless charter schools voluntarily cooperate.”
Read on.
In this stunning review of Oakland’s recent history, retired teacher Thomas Ultican shows how that city’s school district was completely captured and nearly destroyed by a succession of Broadie Superintendents.
The “Destroy Public Education Movement” was launched in 2001 by then-Mayor Jerry Brown, who started Oakland’s first charter school.
The district fell into debt, and the state took control. Under state control, Oakland schools were managed and mismanaged by a series of Broad-trained Superintendents. Oakland became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Broad Foundation, and each superintendent opened more charter schools than his predecessor.
“Like the Republican politicians in Detroit, Democratic politicians in California pushed OUSD into financial disarray. And like Detroit, Oakland’s financial issues were driven by declining enrollment stemming from the same drivers; privatization, gentrification and suburban development.”
Broadies, writes Ultican, have a long-established track record of disruption, discord, and fiscal mismanagement.
In Oakland, one Broadie followed another, driving demoralization and disarray.
There is at last, he writes, a new superintendent who is not a Broadie. Her name is Kyla Johnson-Trammell. If the billionaires get out of her way, she might be able to restore stability in the district.
Ultican writes:
“A constant theme promoted by the DPE movement is “every student deserves a high-quality school.” When you hear a billionaire or one of his minions say this, you and your community are targets and your about to be fleeced.
“The United States developed a unique education system that was the envy of the world and the great foundation upon which our democratic experiment in self-governance was established. Over two centuries, we developed a system in which every community had a high-quality public school.
“These schools had professionals who earned their positions by completing training at accredited institutions. Government rules and oversight insured that school facilities were safe, and the background of all educators was investigated. In urban areas like Oakland there was a professionally run public school in every neighborhood.
“Could it have been improved? Of course, and that is exactly what was happening before the deceitful attack on public education and teachers.”
He is hopeful that the new homegrown leadership might extract Oakland schools and students from the billionaires’ Petri dish.
Diane Ravitch's blog 