Archives for category: Privatization

The former leader of Family Foundations Academy was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison for embezzlement. He confessed that he was suffering from “‘a severe level of sexual addiction and shopping addiction.’” Yeah, that’s a pretty good reason for embezzlement of public funds.

It is almost as good as my favorite from the founder of the Lion of Judah Charter School in Cleveland, who was indicted for diverting $1.2 million to his personal businesses and was ordered to pay restitution of $195,000. His lawyer said it wasn’t right to blame him because he saw easy opportunities to make money and he got greedy.

Excuses, excuses! Greed, shopping addiction!

As this article by Matt Barnum in Chalkbeat shows, Kansas City did not want to hand its public schools over to the corporate reform movement, and it kicked out the privatizers a few years ago.

But the privatizers are back, with a new name, and a local native-born leader touting the virtues of the “portfolio model” and a “common enrollment application” for public schools and charter schools. The new approach is funded by the privatization-loving Walton Family Foundation and the Kauffman Foundation. OneApp, the common enrollment system is intended to confuse parents about the differences between public schools and charter schools, and give the appearance that they are the same. They are not. Charter schools choose their students; public schools do not. Charter schools may close without warning; public schools do not. Charter schools are not willing to take the students with the greatest needs; public schools are required to do so.

And so far, many education leaders in Kansas City seem to have fallen for the “portfolio model,” which is a stealth way of importing privatization.

The Kansas City superintendent, Mark Befell, is approaching the new bait warily. But the stars are aligning to put Kansas City into the grasp of the privatizers.

Bedell, the district superintendent, says that SchoolSmart may be too focused on creating new schools and expanding successful ones at the expense of helping existing, low-performing schools.

“I think the only concern that I have is their initial focus has been primarily on schools that are emerging, schools that are high performing,” he said. “You want to really move an urban school system like ours, you have a larger share of your schools that are low performing, we need to put resources in those schools.”

But, Bedell said, “Fortunately, [Sufi] listened to that and [SchoolSmart] provided support for me and some of my schools that have been struggling.”

SchoolSmart KC has also promoted the idea of a common enrollment system for district and charter schools.

“Participation in common, unified enrollment systems must also be required so that all families have equal access to schools,” Sufi said in recent testimony to the Missouri state legislature. “Such a system will also promote equity where our least advantaged families have equal access to quality options.”

Bedell is skeptical of this idea.

“Nope, not interested in it,” he said flatly, saying that he believed some charter schools were selectively enrolling and pushing out certain students, which made it difficult to build a positive relationship between the two sectors.

“One of the things that we’re looking to do is go and visit some of the other cities — Denver, Indianapolis, Camden — where the [district–charter] partnerships are working well,” said Bedell. Incidentally, those are three cities often promoted by advocates of the portfolio model.

Meanwhile, some remain wary of who is funding SchoolSmart. In addition to local philanthropies, SchoolSmart identifies the Walton Foundation as one of its core investors. Sufi said Hall, Kaufman, and Walton had together made a 10-year funding commitment of over $50 million.

“Philanthropy can have its own agenda too — that’s OK, there’s nothing wrong with that, but I think everybody just needs to be aware,” said Wolfsie, the Kansas City school board member. “Funders, they have a say what [SchoolSmart KC’s] strategic direction probably will be — otherwise they may not fund.”

If history and experience are guides, charter schools will take the best students, and leave the rest for public schools, which have even fewer resources to educate them.

Both the Walton and Kauffman foundations have been strong supporters of charter schools; Kauffman even founded its own (high-performing) charter school in Kansas City.

Matt Barnum of Chalkbeat here describes the spread of the gospel of the “portfolio model” of schooling.In his article, Barnum shows how Indianapolis has fallen hook, line, and sinker for privatization of its public schools.

I first heard the term used by Paul Hill of the Center for the Reinvention of Public Education at the University of Washington, a leading thinker in the privatization movement.

The basic idea is that school boards should treat their schools as if they were a stock portfolio. Some will be public schools run by the district; others will be privately managed. If a school gets low scores, close it and open a new one. If a school is not performing well, turn it over to private management. Buy and sell schools as you would buy and sell stocks in a portfolio. Disruption? No problem. Chaos? No problem.

That’s the basic idea.

For this to work, you need both supply (a willing number of charter operators, ready to move in) and demand (dissatisfied parents). So it is necessary to create dissatisfaction with the repeated claim that “our schools are failing” and to put public schools and charter schools on an equal footing by having a common enrollment system (the OneApp or some other name that gives the appearance that charters are public schools, even though they choose their students and operate under different rules and laws).

How was Indianapolis snookered into privatizing its public schools en masse? Barnum credits the work of the Mind Trust, a faux-liberal group that worked closely with the faux-liberal Stand for Children, which is a passthrough for the funding of corporations and corporate reformers.

The district is actively turning over schools to charter operators, and it’s rolling out a common enrollment system for district and charter schools that could make it easier for charters to grow. Nearly half of the district’s students now attend charters or district schools with charter-like freedoms.

It’s a remarkable shift that many in Indianapolis credit to — or blame on — the Mind Trust, a well-funded local nonprofit with a clear vision for improving education in Indianapolis.

Since its founding in 2006, the organization has called for dramatic changes to schools; recruited outside advocacy, teacher training, and charter groups; and spent millions to help launch new charter and district schools. The Mind Trust’s vision has also won support from the school board — which was elected with the financial backing of Stand for Children, an advocacy group recruited by the Mind Trust.

Stand for Children is an enemy of public schools and professional teachers. It is the conduit for privatization dollars. It has fielded candidates to run against supporters of public schools, in efforts to replace them with privatizers on school boards. It led efforts in Illinois and Massachusetts to curtail the power of unions and to reduce entry requirements for teachers.

Barnum’s article shows how the efforts of the corporate reformers are spreading even as the performance of charters is faltering, and news of charter scandals, frauds, and embezzlements is growing. The charter movement simply ignores the NAACP’s call for a moratorium on new charters, as well as their underlying demand for greater investment in the schools that enroll children with the greatest needs.

The charter movement is inextricably tied up with the funding of the Koch Brothers, the DeVos family, Eli Broad, and Bill Gates. Advocacy for charter schools is inextricably connected to the far-rightwing ALEC and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

Charters are the gateway drug to vouchers.

The proponents of the charter movement, as author Katherine Stewart said in her recent article in The American Prospect, are “the useful idiots” of privatization; they have paved the way for the religious extremists and fundamentalists who control some of the largest charter chains and receive the largest number of vouchers.

The privatization of public education is a dagger aimed at democracy, with the aid and support of the Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Mind Trust, Stand for Children, and others who believe neither in public education nor in democratic control of public schools.

Every time that international test scores are released, there is a predictable clamor to “do something.”

President Obama said that our ranking on an international test was “a Sputnik moment” and reason to push harder for the “remedies” in Race to the Top. We now know that Race to the Top was a failure that had no positive results. Schools were closed, teachers were fired, many new charter schools opened, and performance on the NAEP in 2015–five years after the launch of Race to the Top–went flat.

Now we have the results of the latest international test, the Progress in International Literacy Study (PIRLS), and the news for fourth graders in the U.S. was not good.

The United States tumbled in international rankings released Tuesday of reading skills among fourth-graders, raising warning flags about students’ ability to compete with international peers.

The decline was especially precipitous for the lowest-performing students, a finding that suggests widening disparities in the U.S. education system.

The United States has traditionally performed well on the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, an assessment given to fourth-graders in schools around the world every five years. In 2016, however, the average score in the United States dropped to 549 out of 1,000, compared to 556 in 2011. The country’s ranking fell from fifth in the world in 2011 to 13th, with 12 education systems outscoring the United States by statistically significant margins. Three other countries roughly tied with the United States; they scored higher, but the differences were not ­notable.

What happened?

The Common Core (aka Common Core State Standards) was introduced across the nation in 2010-2011. The students now in fourth grade were the first cohort to get Common Core, starting in kindergarten.

Their reading scores went down, and it appears that the children who were likeliest to see declines were the lowest performing students.

The Common Core standards were written hurriedly, funded entirely by one man (Bill Gates), and rushed into implementation without any field testing whatsoever. Gates not only paid the hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the writing of Common Core, but he spent many more millions (some have estimated as much as $2 billion) to persuade advocacy groups and education organizations to support the adoption and implementation of the standards.

Would the FDA approve a drug for national use without field testing?

Of course not.

Our children were guinea pigs, and the experiment failed.

Almost every state in the nation has adopted Common Core. Some have rebranded it, but it is still Common Core.

What will states do now?

One of the most prominent advocates for Common Core was Jeb Bush, who is close to Betsy DeVos. They loved Common Core, because they expected it would cause widespread failure and hasten support for the privatization of public schools.

DeVos reacted to the declining scores on PIRLS by advocating for more school choice, more charters and vouchers.

In 2012, Joel Klein and Condoleezza Rice wrote a report claiming that public schools were so awful that they endangered national security. Their recommendations: more charters, more vouchers, and Common Core.

Friends, we can’t let these nihilists destroy our democratic system of public education.

Schools improve when they have adequate funding, not competition. Schools improve when students live stable lives, with access to food, medicine, and decent living conditions. Schools improve when they are staffed with professional teachers, not temporary, untrained teachers.

Common Core has failed our nation and our students. So have the privatizers.

Since the passage and signing of No Child Left Behind on January 8, 2002, the U.S. has been on the wrong track.

Can the “reformers” please admit their errors and change their ways? Or are they determined to keep pushing the same failed strategies without regard to evidence?

Andrea Gabor is the Michael Bloomberg Professor of business journalism at Baruch College of the City University of New York. She is also a deeply knowledgeable scholar of corporate education reform. She debunked the alleged “New Orleans miracle” in the New York Times.

In this post, she expresses her concern about the fawning praise for Eva Moskowitz’s charter schools and explains why Eva’s charter schools are not a model for public education.

She writes:

It is we—that is American citizens—who should be terrified because Success Academy is entirely in-sync with the Trump era. It is unapologetically anti-democratic, anti-union, segregated and relentlessly test-driven. And, it should be noted, the CMO has not yet graduated a single high school student.

At a time when we are facing an existential threat to our democracy—one enabled by a decades-long obsession with standardized tests that narrowed curriculum and helped kill off civics education—the championing of Success Academy by writer as influential as Elizabeth Green, she is the founding editor of ChalkBeat and author of Building a Better Teacher, is worrying indeed.

Let’s be clear. Judging by its roster of 46 schools, there are potentially thousands of families who are happy with the education Success Academy provides, and many more who might have been if they had won the network’s lottery—though parents have complained of the CMO’s harsh, and even abusive, ‘boot-camp-like” culture—see here and here. Indeed, hundreds, if not thousands of children have been pulled out by their families (or forced out) because of the network’s strict demands for behavioral compliance and its single-focused pursuit of high test scores…

But Green fails to address key questions about the kind of education Success kids get—and at what cost. She certainly doesn’t question whether the ever-changing, bubble-in test-scores are the best—or even a good–measure of learning. While she acknowledges giving up on democratic control of schools and districts, she never considers the historic, foundational role of public education in a democracy—and the civic cost of autocratic education systems. Nor does Green consider the successful public-school networks amid what she, rightly, describes as the crushing bureaucracy that has often stifled New York City schools—even though she has published stories about them!

Green also glosses over—and, in some cases, omits entirely—the considerable problems with the Success Academy model, including widespread creaming and credible allegations of abusive behavior toward children. Although Green’s own book points out that the best teachers have years of experience, she says not one word about Success Academy’s high teacher attrition rate. Some Success Academy schools lose over half of their teachers each year; few last more than three years.

Gabor writes that there are excellent models within public education of success, and she refers specifically to the New York Performance Standards Consortium, which has used a progressive model of education with great results.

Gabor despairs of those who think that democracy is the problem, and charter schools are the answer. To give up on democracy is to fall into the snare of the Trump agenda. Let the authoritarian leader solve all problems.

Why anyone believes that a strict authoritarian school is just right for all or most American children is a puzzle. It may be right for some, but it is not a model for public education.

Professor Mark Harmon writes here about the showing of “Backpack Full of Cash” in Knoxville, where the audience learned about the devastating impact of charters draining resources from public schools, as well as charter school scandals.

Someday, when people look back on this era of malignant privatization, “Backpack Full of Cash” will be recognized for its role in informing the public about the assault by rightwingers on public education.

Go to the film’s website and learn how you can arrange a showing in your community.

It is a shame that PBS refuses to show this excellent documentary. If only a few billionaires stepped up and offered to buy time for it. Or even one billionaire.

Mercedes Schneider reports on a study funded by the Race to the Top program of the U.S. Department of Education and the Walton Family Foundation which concludes that state takeovers of low-performing schools in Tennessee made no difference. The schools remained low performing. That is, the takeovers failed. The schools taken over did not vault from the bottom of state rankings to the top. The so-called Achievement School District failed. The study can be found here.

This finding is no surprise to readers of this blog, as Gary Rubinstein has followed the progress–or lack thereof–of the ASD since its inception and has regularly reported that the low performing schools were not making any gains. Rubinstein said after six years of watching that the ASD was “a colossal failure.”

This is the abstract of the study by Ron Zimmer, Gary T. Henry, and Adam Kho:

In recent years, the federal government has invested billions of dollars to reform chronically low-performing schools. To fulfill their federal Race to the Top grant agreement, Tennessee implemented three turnaround strategies that adhered to the federal restart and transformation models: (a) placed schools under the auspices of the Achievement School District (ASD), which directly managed them; (b) placed schools under the ASD, which arranged for management by a charter management organization; and (c) placed schools under the management of a district Innovation Zone (iZone) with additional resources and autonomy. We examine the effects of each strategy and find that iZone schools, which were separately managed by three districts, substantially improved student achievement. In schools under the auspices of the ASD, student achievement did not improve or worsen. This suggests that it is possible to improve schools without removing them from the governance of a school district.

Schneider’s post includes additional quotations from the study.

And she finds it amusing, as do I, that the study was funded by the Walton Family Foundation, which is spending $200 million a year on new charters, every year. Add that to the $263 million that Betsy DeVos handed out from the U.S. Department of Education and that is a half billion a year to open new charters, from only two of the many sources committed to privatization.

After 25 years of the charter “experiment,” there is a growing body of evidence that they do not have a “secret sauce,” other than selection and attrition. That is not a replicable model for American education.

Jan Resseger read Rebecca Mead’s article about Success Academy charter schools and wondered: Can a no-excuses tightly-disciplined school be considered progressive?

“Mead’s subtitle names a contradiction at the center of Moskowitz’s educational theory: “Inside Eva Moskowitz’s Quest to Combine Rigid Discipline with a Progressive Curriculum.” Even as Moskowitz defends the rigid and punitive discipline for which her schools are famous (In Mead’s piece, Moskowitz is quoted as defending the suspension of young children out of school as an important way of impressing a lesson on children and their parents.), Moskowitz claims John Dewey, the father of progressive education, as a guide to what happens in her schools. Moskowitz describes her curriculum as an example of progressivism—“circle time on the classroom rug; interdisciplinary projects that encompass math, science, social studies, and literacy.” The question that underlies Mead’s analysis is whether it is possible to run a progressive school with no-excuses discipline.

“While on one level Mead entertains Moskowitz’s rhetoric about progressivism, Mead seems puzzled by the circle time on the classroom rug: “In the second-grade classroom in Queens, the gridded rug seemed less like a magic carpet than like a chessboard at the start of a game. Within each square there was a large colored spot the size of a chair cushion. The children sat in rows, facing forward, each within his or her assigned square, with their legs crossed and their hands clasped or folded in their laps. Success students can expect to be called to answer a teacher’s question at any moment, not just when they raise their hand, and must keep their eyes trained on the speaker at all times, a practice known as ‘tracking.’ Staring off into space, or avoiding eye contact is not acceptable.”

“Like students at progressive schools (and all kinds of public schools, actually), students in Success Academies go on field trips. And Mead visits a room where Kindergardeners are taken to play with blocks: “The school has dedicated a special classroom to the activity, and shelves were filled with an enviable supply of blocks. The walls of the room were decorated with pictures of architectural structures that the students might seek to emulate, from the Empire State Building to the Taj Mahal. There was also a list of rules: always walk; carry two small blocks or hug one large block; speak in a whisper.” Unlike free-play at progressive early childhood centers—with dolls, and blocks, and easels and paint, and clay or PlayDoh—block time at the school Mead visits is a specific activity provided by the school in a “block” room to which the entire class of children is led for an assigned period.”

What makes a school “progressive?”

Why is Eva Moskowitz eager to be called “progressive”?

Can “progressive” pedagogy flourish in an atmosphere of authoritarian discipline?

Join the Network for Public Education Action Fund in protest against public funding of private schools. Open the link. When you sign in, you can automatically send letters to your senators and members of Congress. You can write your own letter or send one that NPE Action has written. We make it easy for you to fight for public schools!

Please join us and speak up.

ECOT, the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, is a virtual charter school that was a ash cow for its owner, William Lager, until the Ohio Department of Education got the novel idea to audit attendance.

It learned that ECOT has inflated enrollments and has charged the state for students who turn on their computer but don’t participate in learning.

ECOT has fought the State I Court and lost repeatedly. Over the past 15 years, ECOT’s founder has given a few million to elected officials and has received about one billion return.

Bill Phillis of theIhio Cpalitionfor Equity and Adequacy has been fighting the squalid charter sector for years.

He reports here onghe latest. Ourtbloss for ECOT:

“Another Court ruling against ECOT

“In a 5-1 decision today the Ohio Supreme Court denied ECOT’s request for an injunction. ECOT was attempting to stop the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) from deducting $2.5 million from its monthly payments in order to collect $60 million it overcharged in 2015-2016.

“ECOT’s claim that ODE erred in its decision to reclaim funds for students not served is still pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. Scheduling of oral arguments in the case has not been announced.

“ECOT has lost all of its many claims before hearing officers and courts thus far. It is interesting; however, that Justice Terrance O’Donnell has always sided with ECOT.”

William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 | ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| http://www.ohiocoalition.org

Ohio E & A, 100 S. 3rd Street, Columbus, OH 43215