Archives for category: Privatization

 

Johann Neem and Tony Tian-Ren Lin explain just how terrible the GOP Tax Law is. It harms our democracy by transferring public funds from public schools to private schools, without the consent of the governed.

“Most attention on the tax legislation enacted last month has focused on its impact on Americans’ wallets. But it was also a victory for school choice and a massive blow to public education.

“It initially included measures to benefit home-schooling families and the final version benefited those who use private schools while eroding the state and local sources that fund public schools. The financial strain to the public schools caused by the loss of that revenue is well documented. The long-term harm to the nation is less evident, but no less profound.

“Public schools were established to knit together the civic fabric of our democracy. They never fully succeeded in that task, but as our discourse becomes increasingly poisoned and our political divisions seem to grow deeper with each passing year, we need them to do so more than ever. Unfortunately, these same developments make Americans more resistant to restoring and completing this original vision for our schools.

”Legislation like the tax bill, which threatens the funding base for public schools and encourages private schooling, promises to exacerbate these problems and poses a real danger to American democracy.

“America’s founders understood that the American experiment would fail if citizens did not hold a common vision for the greater good. The need for a shared civic culture became urgent by the 1830s as ethnic and ideological conflicts produced violence in America’s streets. One of the most effective antidotes to this disunity was tax-supported “common” public schools. America’s public schools were founded to educate citizens and bring diverse Americans together to instill a common vision for the nation.”

Johann Neem and his family came to the U.S. from India when he was a child. He credits the public schools for giving him the opportunity to rise and succeed in American society.

 

 

Tom Ultican blames Democrats for the destruction of public schools in Indianapolis, led by the well-funded Mind Trust. 

What he describes is the Democratic party’s betrayal of public education and democracy. It is a shameful legacy, and it is not about the past. It is happening right now.

He writes:

”The Mind Trust is the proto-type urban school privatizing design. Working locally, it uses a combination of national money and local money to control teacher professional development, create political hegemony and accelerate charter school growth. The destroy public education (DPE) movement has identified The Mind Trust as a model for the nation.

“A Little History

“In 1999, Bart Peterson became the first Democrat to win the Indianapolis mayor’s race since 1967. Peterson campaigned on the promise to bring charter schools to Indianapolis. He claimed, “We are simply in an age where cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all, 1950s style education just doesn’t work for a lot of kids. The evidence is the dropout rate. The evidence is the number of at-risk kids who are failing at school.”

“The new mayor joined with Republican state senator Teresa Lubbers to finally achieve her almost decade long effort of passing a charter school law in Indiana. In the new charter school law, Lubbers provided for the mayor of Indianapolis to be a charter school authorizer. Then Democratic governor, Frank O’Bannon, signed the legislation into law.

“During his first run for office, Peterson invited David Harris a 27-year old lawyer with no education background to be his education guy. Harris became the director of the mayor’s new charter school office. By the 2006-2007, the Peterson administration had authorized 16 charter schools.”

He then goes on to quote conservatives who are thrilled to see that Democrats have embraced their privatization agenda.

Tultican lists the board of directors of the Mind Trust. Notably, none are educators.

“It is noteworthy that no school teachers or parent organization leaders are on this board which is dominated by corporate leaders and politicians. It is possible that one of the four school organization chief administrators taught at one time during their career but no one with recent classroom experience is represented.”

Mind Trust leader David Harris became a rising star in the privatization movement. Tultican helpfully lists his peers, all prominent in the “Destroy Public Education Movement.”

And then there are the funders! Gates, Walton, the usual suspects, the crowd that is contemptuous of public schools.

“December 2016 the not so Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) published a lengthy piece lauding privatization and choice in public schools. They held Indianapolis up as being a leader in developing 21st century schools and The Mind Trust as the catalyst. The paper stated:

A key reason is The Mind Trust, founded in 2006 by Mayor Peterson and David Harris as a kind of venture capital outfit for the charter sector, to raise money and recruit talent. The Mind Trust convinced Teach For America (TFA), The New Teacher Project (now TNTP), and Stand for Children to come to Indianapolis, in part by raising money for them. Since then TFA has brought in more than 500 teachers and 39 school leaders (the latter through its Indianapolis Principal Fellowship); TNTP’s Indianapolis Teaching Fellows Program has trained 498 teachers; and Stand for Children has worked to engage the community, to educate parents about school reform, and to spearhead fundraising for school board candidates. The Mind Trust has also raised millions of dollars and offered start-up space, grants, and other help to eight nonprofit organizations and 17 new schools, with more to come.

“The PPI claims that bringing in 500 teachers who commit for just two years and have only five weeks of teacher training improves education. This is supposedly better than bringing in experienced teachers or newly minted teachers who are committed to a career in education and have between one and two years of teacher training at a university.

“They are also saying that having Stand for Children invade Indianapolis with their dark money and undermining local democratic processes is desirable.

“Instead of raising millions of dollars to improve public schools, The Mind Trust is using that money in a way that undermines the education of two-thirds of the students in Indianapolis who attend those public schools.”

This is as good an analysis of the privatization movement as you will read. And an ansolutely devastating critique of the role of the Democratic Party in promoting this anti-democratic attack on public education.

The Mind Trust has taken the lead role in destroying public education in Indianapolis. It is a shameful legacy.

 

 

 

 

 

Thomas A. Cox practiced law in Georgia for many years and taught Education Policy and the Law at Emory University. Recently he moved to Virginia and discovered that the state’s leading newspaper, the Richmond Times Dispatch, was habitually hostile to the principle of public education and cheerleading for privatization. Cox submitted this opinion article to set the record straight, which the newspaper published.

I hope the editorial writers read his article.

He wrote about the falsity of the “failing schools narrative” and demonstrated that it is just plain wrong.

“Not often heard over the noise of this failure narrative is some compelling evidence that America’s public schools, far from being awash in failure, have overall been performing remarkably well, particularly in the face of new challenges and changing demographics. This counter-narrative is shared by a number of education researchers, historians, and educators, although they seldom receive the same fanfare (or financial impetus) as the nay-saying privatization advocates.”

Privatization is no answer to the challenges faced by our students today.

“A blind reliance on profit-driven markets to address and solve the challenges in educating America’s children would constitute a non-evidence-based leap of faith. Even worse, it would drive us toward abandoning our long-shared concept of education as a “common good” that we as a democratic polity have a collective responsibility to provide to all children. For almost two centuries, our country has served as a model to the world by striving to achieve that ideal through a shared societal commitment to publicly funded and locally operated schools.

“Although far from perfect and in need of constant re-evaluation and improvement, public schools and their legions of dedicated teachers continue to serve as critically important institutional forces in our nation’s ongoing struggle to provide equal opportunities for all citizens. In an age when so many economic and societal forces serve instead to increase inequality, now is no time for us to abandon that common commitment.”

 

 

Julian Vasquez Heilig reported here that the California Charter School Association was using its muscle in the state legislature to weaken accountability, especially rules that govern conflicts of interest.

The good news: The bill has been killed.

JVH wrote:

The California Charter School Association has been carrying a bill – SB 806 (Glazer) – to loosen regulations on conflict of interest at charter schools. Pretty obscene in the midst of conflict of interest stories like this and this, two stories that came out since this bill was rejected by the Legislature last year.

The author is determined to stop charter schools from having to comply with Government Code 1090; This law protects the public and prevents conflicts of interest. SB 806 has a provision which stops authorizers like Los Angeles Unified or East Side from being able to require that new charter petitioners agree to comply with Government Code 1090; SB 806 says that only the limited conflict of interest provisions within the bill can be applied. The only changes in the bill that were made since last year are some minor new transparency for contracts between charter schools and CMOs. This is inadequate because CMOs manage charter schools and should comply with open meetings and public records laws, just like school districts that manage district schools.

The charters school lobbyists are sneaky because they are pushing this right after the holiday recess and the bill sprung onto the calendar not leaving much time for the public to speak out.

Here is a simple but important idea:

#KidsNotProfits

On January 9, the effort to weaken the conflict of interest Limits was killed by opponents of the charter industry.

 

Ohio has terrible education policy—it is a leader in privatization—but very strong data collection. Its data demonstrate how awful its policies are.

In this post, you will learn that the graduates of charter schools are least likely to earn a college degree within six years after high school as compared to every other kind of school.

Stephen Dyer writes:

”One of the more interesting — and telling — datasets now available with the state report card is how kids who graduate from Ohio’s schools perform after they graduate. For example, we now know the percentage of graduates who have a college degree within 6 years, as well as how many graduates have enrolled in college within 2 years of graduation.

“Looking at these two metrics, it’s remarkable how bad charter schools perform. Overall, Ohio school districts have 5 times the rate of students with college degrees that charters have. And Big 8 urban districts (Akron, Canton, Cincinnati. Columbus, Cleveland, Dayton, Toledo and Youngstown) have twice the rate.”

Some charter schools had zero college graduates.

Open the link for the graphs from the state website.

 

 

The rightwing, anti-union Walton Family Foundation has funded a group called Innovate to push charter schools as the solution to achievement gaps in San Francisco.

Innovate targets Black and Latino families and peddles the hoax that charters have the secret formula for closing achievement gaps that are rooted in poverty.

“Innovate is a South Bay-based group founded in 2013 and describing itself as a “nonprofit organization whose mission is to build the parent and community demand for world-class public schools, and to accelerate the growth of these schools, particularly for low-income students and students of color.”

“Fair enough. But achieving this end has, reliably, taken the form of agitation for charter schools. The organization is generously funded by pro-charter outfits such as the Walton Family Foundation, which has put hundreds of millions of dollars into bankrolling taxpayer-funded, privately operated schools nationwide. Innovate’s own founding documents state that its raison d’être is to “focus on education reform that will support the creation of new charter schools and innovative district schools, parent choice, and strong systems of accountability.”

“Prior to turning its eyes to the north, Innovate won contentious battles in the San Jose area, besting opponents claiming that charter schools are cannibalizing the public system. They began quietly cultivating black and Latino parents in the Bayview and Mission two years ago, but it’s only in the last several months that this has garnered much attention. The organization began saturating area residents’ social media feeds with links to its report claiming San Francisco schools are the very worst in all of California for poor students of color.

“(The district disputes Innovate’s use of the data — but there’s no way to make the stats look good; generations of minority parents have complained that San Francisco’s schools have failed them, and the gaping achievement gap shows no indications of narrowing in the short term.)

“Innovate’s report is titled, “A Dream Deferred,” a Langston Hughes reference lost on few. Also lost on few is the exquisite quality of this document’s online form, which allows readers ample opportunity to share it with elected officials — and share their personal data with Innovate — at the push of a button.

“Innovate’s most recent tax forms indicate it grossed more than $4 million in 2015 alone, and its slick materials, excellent website, and a communications staff dwarfing the San Francisco Unified School District’s are indicative of that.”

Innovate implied that it has the support of the NAACP, but failed to mention that the state and national NAACP have called for a moratorium on new charters. They used the words of Amos Brown, the head of the local NAACP, and he was unhappy.

““You can tell everybody you see, whether in hell or heaven, that it is not my position to support Innovate and their move for charter schools,” Brown told us. “I want to make it crystal clear to those people: They are not to use my name in support of no charter school! I don’t appreciate this one bit.”

”Mission Local has heard many such stories: Innovate staff packing public meetings and clapping and shouting at the right times; Innovate employees crashing seminars intended for parents, participating in them, and scouting for recruits; Innovate staff trying to gain entry into community organizations.

“These are tactics more befitting campus Marxists or Lyndon LaRouche acolytes than a multi-million-dollar nonprofit with dozens of employees and a coterie of extremely wealthy backers. But the strategies employed by scrappy ideological groups do work — and can be even more effective when you have big bucks on-hand to pay professional organizers.”

Innovate is preying on parents’ hopes and fears. You can be sure that parents will never hear about the many failed charters that litter California, Tennessee, Nevada, Michigan, and other states.

 

 

 

 

 

The Education Law Center reports that the New Jersey legislature plans to give Camden’s public schools to out-of-state charter chains. Camden is one of the most impoverished small cities in the state. Public assets will be handed over to private entities, a blatant grab of public funds.

http://edlawcenter.org/news/archives/nj-charter-schools/nj-legislature-poised-to-hand-over-camden-public-schools-to-out-of-state-charter-chains.html

January 8, 2018

A NJ Senate bill pending in the lame duck legislative session would allow the State-operated Camden district to turn over operation of most, if not all, of its enrollment and schools to three out-of-state charter groups: New York-based KIPP and Uncommon and Philadelphia-based Mastery charter networks.

Under special legislation enacted in 2011, the Camden school district has approved the operation of 12 elementary, middle and high schools by KIPP, Uncommon and Mastery, closing several district schools in the process. Under the law, the three charter chains have also secured pre-approval from the NJ Department of Education and the Camden district to enroll over 9,000 Camden students, or more than 60 % of Camden’s total enrollment, and open 16 additional schools.

The NJ Senate bill would amend the existing law by expanding the scope of the geographical area in Camden where KIPP, Mastery and Uncommon can expand from specific Camden neighborhoods to the entire city.

Another amendment in the bill would eliminate the requirement that the charter chains can open schools only in new or substantially reconstructed buildings financed by the charters themselves. Instead, they would be allowed to expand to any building newly constructed or renovated in the last five years, including district schools. This opens the door to the takeover of buildings with improvements financed by the NJ Schools Development Authority (SDA) under the court-ordered Abbott v. Burke school construction program.

The SDA has approved the demolition of Camden High School and has authorized construction of a new, $130 million Camden High for the district.
In a January 5 statement prepared for the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee, Education Law Center urged lawmakers to reject the Senate bill, expressing serious concerns including a potential turnover of the new Camden High to either KIPP, Uncommon or Mastery.

“The Senate bill will permit the State-operated Camden district to transfer, after construction by the SDA, the new Camden High School to either the KIPP, Uncommon or Mastery charter chains,” David Sciarra, ELC Executive Director and counsel to Camden school children in the landmark Abbott litigation, wrote in ELC’s testimony. “It would be a flagrant fraud upon the Abbott court rulings, the Abbott school construction program, the SDA, and NJ taxpayers if the SDA builds Camden High as a district public school, only to have the district then hand the brand new facility over to a non-public, private entity.”

ELC also opposes the bill because the amendments, taken together, would delegate to KIPP, Uncommon and Mastery the authority to serve the vast majority of Camden students, fueling the Camden district to close even more schools.

“This bill green-lights the State-operated Camden district to close not just a few, but all or most district-operated schools, and then consign all or the vast majority of Camden students to attend a KIPP, Uncommon or Mastery-run school,” Mr. Sciarra added in the testimony. “The bill delegates the authority and responsibility for the education of most, if not all, Camden school children to three private charter chains, with scant accountability to Camden parents, residents, voters and taxpayers.”

This is a fantastic article that first appeared in the New Yorker in 2014. At the time, I posted it. This is an article that I should post at least once a year.

In it, Jill Lepore demolishes the myth of “creative destruction.”

We often hear corporate reformers say that disruption is a wonderful thing, as they close beloved local public schools and replace them with charter schools run by out-of-state entrepreneurs; if that school fails, then they close it and open another and another. Isn’t disruption wonderful?

I have always thought that disruption was a concept that might be good in the corporate world, but not in the personal realm. Children crave stability. They need a stable family, a stable home, and a stable school. They need to feel protected, because they are small. Disruption is unhealthy for them.

But we are told that disruption is the way of the modern world.

Lepore says no. She tears apart Clayton Christenson’s case studies about innovation and disruption.

She writes:

Disruptive innovation as an explanation for how change happens is everywhere. Ideas that come from business schools are exceptionally well marketed. Faith in disruption is the best illustration, and the worst case, of a larger historical transformation having to do with secularization, and what happens when the invisible hand replaces the hand of God as explanation and justification. Innovation and disruption are ideas that originated in the arena of business but which have since been applied to arenas whose values and goals are remote from the values and goals of business. People aren’t disk drives. Public schools, colleges and universities, churches, museums, and many hospitals, all of which have been subjected to disruptive innovation, have revenues and expenses and infrastructures, but they aren’t industries in the same way that manufacturers of hard-disk drives or truck engines or drygoods are industries. Journalism isn’t an industry in that sense, either.

Doctors have obligations to their patients, teachers to their students, pastors to their congregations, curators to the public, and journalists to their readers—obligations that lie outside the realm of earnings, and are fundamentally different from the obligations that a business executive has to employees, partners, and investors. Historically, institutions like museums, hospitals, schools, and universities have been supported by patronage, donations made by individuals or funding from church or state. The press has generally supported itself by charging subscribers and selling advertising. (Underwriting by corporations and foundations is a funding source of more recent vintage.) Charging for admission, membership, subscriptions and, for some, earning profits are similarities these institutions have with businesses. Still, that doesn’t make them industries, which turn things into commodities and sell them for gain.

I won’t attempt to summarize the article. I will just say: Read it and enjoy.

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed No Child Left Behind into Law.

NCLB, as it was known, is the worst federal education legislation ever passed by Congress. It was punitive, harsh, stupid, ignorant about pedagogy and motivation, and ultimately a dismal failure. Those who still admire NCLB either helped write it, or were paid to like it, or were profiting from it.

It was Bush’s signature issue. He said it would end “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” It didn’t.

When he campaigned for the presidency, he and his surrogates claimed there had been a “Texas miracle.” There wasn’t.

All that was needed, they said, was to test every child in grades 3-8 every year in reading and math. Make the results for schools public. Reward schools that raised scores. Punish schools for lower scores. Then watch as test scores soar, graduation rates rise, and achievement gaps closed. It didn’t happen in Texas nor in the nation.

The theory was simple, simplistic, and stupid: test, then punish or reward.

Congress bought the claim of the Texas miracle and passed NCLB, co-sponsored by leading Republicans and Democrats, including Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Congressman George Miller of California.

Congress mandated that every student in every school must be proficient on standardized tests of reading or math or the school was a failure, facing closure or privatization by 2014. NCLB was a ticking time bomb, set to destroy American public education by setting an impossible goal, one that almost every school in every state would ultimately fail.

It was the largest expansion of the federal role in history. It was the largest intrusion of the federal government into state and local education decisiomaking ever.

It was the stupidest education law ever passed.

Bush’s original proposal was a 28-page document. (I was invited to the White House ceremony where it was unveiled; at the time, I was a member in good standing of the conservative policy elite). By the time the bill passed, the new law exceeded 1,000 pages. A Republican Congressman from Colorado told me that he thought he was the only member who read the whole bill (he voted against it.)

NCLB took the place of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, a component of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” Program. The primary purpose of ESEA was to send federal funds to the poorest districts. (During the Clinton administration, ESEA was renamed the Goals 2000 Act and incorporated the lofty education goals endorsed by the first Bush administration.

To learn more about this history and why NCLB failed, read my book “The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education.” To learn more about the negative effects of NCLB, read Daniel Koretz’s new book, “The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better.” To learn more about the unintended negative effects of accountability, google Richard Rothstein’s monograph “Holding Accountability to Account.”

This is what we got from NCLB: score inflation, cheating, narrowing the curriculum, obsession with test scores, more time devoted to testing, less time for the arts, physical education, history, civics, play, and anything else that was not tested. Among other consequences: demoralization of teachers, a national teacher shortage, more money for testing companies, and less money for teachers and class size reduction.

We also got a load of “reforms” that had no evidence to support them, such as closing schools, firing teachers and principals because of low scores, handing schools with low scores over to charter operators or the state.

NCLB, in turn, led to its ugly spawn, Race to the Top, which was even meaner and more punitive than NCLB. Race to the Top turned up the heat on test scores, making them the measure of teacher quality despite decades of social science that refuted that policy. More teachers and principals were fired,  more public schools were closed, enrollments in professional education programs plummeted across the country.

NCLB was the Death Star of American education. Race to the Top was the Executioner, scouring the land with a giant scythe in search of teachers, principals, and schools to kill if student scores didn’t go up.

When the law was passed, I went to an event at the Willard Hotel in D.C. where key senators discussed it. One of them was Senator Lamar Alexander, former governor of Tennessee, former U.S. Secretary of Education (for whom I worked as Assistant Secretary of Education in charge of the Office of Education Research and Improvement). At the end of the panel, when it was time for questions, I asked Senator Alexander whether Congress really believed that every student in the nation would be proficient by 2014. He said that Congress knew they would not be, but “it’s good to have goals.”

So NCLB demanded that schools meet goals they knew were impossible. People were fired, lost their careers and reputations. Schools were closed, communities destroyed. Because “it’s good to have goals.”

Sixteen years ago, NCLB became law. It was a dark day indeed for children, for teachers, for principals, for public education, and for the very nature of learning, which cannot be spurred by incentives or mandates or punishments or rewards.

“You measure what you treasure,” I was told by Arne Duncan’s Assistant Secretary for Thinking.

“No,” I replied, “that’s exactly what cannot be measured.” Love, honor, kindness, decency, compassion, family, friends, courage, creativity. No standardized test measures what matters most. I do not treasure what standardized tests measure.

Farewell, NCLB. May you, your progeny, your warped understanding of children and learning disappear from our land, never to be recalled except as an example of a costly failure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you believe in miracles? Do you want to believe that a charter chain—unlike public schools— can graduate every student, no matter what their economic status, and send them on to college? We all want to believe in heroic teachers and miracle schools. The reality is often not as impressive in the cold light of day. Incremental change is a stabler, more reliable base for lasting change but it is not so exciting as miracles.

Along comes Jersey Jazzman to debunk the latest miracle charter story promoted by the New York Daily News. 

The story and follow-up editorial cited this statistic about Democracy Prep Charter High Schools:

“According to the network, last year 189 of the 195 seniors in its three high schools that had graduating classes went on to college. And although the sample size is small (the network has graduated fewer than 400 students), the network estimates that 80% of its graduates either are still in college or have graduated.“

Wow! A 97% graduation rate!

The first reason to question the claim is that the article was written by the education policy director of a rightwing think tank, the Manhattan Institute, whose job is to promote privatization.

But Jersey Jazzman had something that the Manhattan Institute didn’t acknowledge and the Daily News didn’t investigate: data on attrition rates from the state education department website. Think of it! Facts! It turns out that 40% of the students enrolled in Democracy Prep in ninth grade left before the end of senior year. Shouldn’t that be included in the story? Why leave it out? In the Democracy Prep School in Camden, “This year’s seniors at Freedom Prep were in a class of 78 freshman. By the fall of their junior year, they were down to 33 students. 58% of the freshmen of the Class of 2018 at Freedom Prep had left by their junior year.” That’s an inconvenient fact for a “miracle” school.

The fault, Jersey Jazzman points out, is not so much with the hired PR flacks nor the thinky tank PR guys as it is with the journalists who swallow these incredible stories without investigating, who forget that miracles should always invite skepticism rather than a dogged will to believe.