Archives for category: Privatization

I received the following letter and agreed to post it.

My name is Matt Schuman, and the majority of my professional experience has consisted of teaching and giving back my own law school education knowledge within New York City schools. My most recent school, The Charter High School for Law and Social Justice (“CHSLSJ”), has been in the news for anti-union behavior. Specifically, the management of the school (via its principal and president of the board) terminated eleven of fifteen members covered by the collective bargaining unit. The only four members retained had no overt association with our union activities.

During CHSLSJ’s first year, my colleagues and I voted to unionize with the U.F.T., not only because we wanted protection, but because we genuinely believed a fair and efficient contract would help this new school build up its infrastructure in positive ways that would impact, both short and long-term, the inaugural classes of scholars and their family-members.

While in law school, I learned about the term, “unconscionable behavior”. I learned that such a level of behavior was a very high bar to reach. From a social justice perspective, lawyers and activists do not just throw around that term. By standard definition, the term “unconscionable” means “unreasonably excessive”. The legal definition means “shocking to the conscience and/or an action so harsh that courts would proscribe it.” New York City can be a tough, competitive place, where a survival of the fittest mentality sometimes reigns: eat or be eaten, play or be played. I could easily complain that I and my fellow colleagues were treated unfairly, but what’s more shocking and unconscionable is the effect(s) of these actions on the scholars and their family-members.

The U.F.T., via its president, Michael Mulgrew, has already cited the blatant “hypocrisy” of my school’s actions: a budding institution formed to help young children from the Bronx not only learn about social justice, but actually move along a better pipeline from high-school to law-school has sent the message that people who advocate for basics protections and their rights are not protected (Otis 18).

As a teacher, I’ve always valued working with the underdogs (people who are not given everything and who very often have to endure strenuous fights for what they want in life). That’s why I joined CHSLSJ as a founding team-member. I wanted to do social justice work, and I believed I could do it there!

Until the leadership regime changed during CHSLSJ’s second year, we all were doing such work. I felt honored and motivated to work with CHSLSJ’s founding principal and assistant principal, Ms. Samantha Pugh and Mr. Simon Obas, respectively. I looked at our Board President’s, Mr. Richard Marsico’s curriculum vitae, and saw that he had devoted his early post-Harvard Law School years to studying and stimulating economic empowerment in the Bronx.

Unfortunately, the charter school wave has generated ample political tension. Charter school C.E.O. figureheads and national networks have pushed results at the expense of human treatment. I never believed that our independent, social justice-oriented charter-school would fall victim to the same trends. I’m disappointed. I do not wish for my scholars to learn non-empathetic, guarded, and secretive behavior.

As a writing teacher, I’m aware of potential back-stories in any given situation: nepotism, social preference, fiscal mismanagement, and uncertain economics. Still, teachers, especially ones that open a school’s doors and promote a man’s mission (or brainchild), deserve to be protected, supported, and celebrated. Many of us went down to the principal, Mr. Sean-Thomas Harrell, and asked for communication towards the end of the year about our roles and status. We were met with vague, misleading, and self-serving responses.

On a larger-scale, I worry about the fate of American education both in technologically, disconnected times and during President Trump’s administration. I look at the recent actions of his son and can only compare them to the actions of the people that I’d hoped would be CHSLSJ’s leaders.

CHSLSJ’s unconscionable actions directly touch on the lives of the scholars and the education provided to them by their instructors. We don’t want to raise a generation of “leaders” who cut corners and think they can squeeze by or into positions with lies. We want people who stand on their own two feet. We don’t want people who fend off any criticism with more misleading information. We want people who will be held accountable, because they, themselves, have integrity.

I am sorry that my former scholars have to see their school’s name in print as a result of a legal case and controversy. Their names should be in print as a result of their achievements! In poignant fashion, the law and mock-trial team which I coached this year knocked off Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School where Donald Trump’s son attends. That achievement mattered, because the children of the Bronx saw firsthand that their own success was possible. We all believed that we could turnkey the skills we demonstrated in the courtroom back to the rest of the school, and in turn move in the horizon line for possibilities, and make what is usually a struggle much more obtainable.

What happened is not fair, but more importantly it is not efficient. My scholars and my colleagues who no longer work at CHSLSJ deserve to hear and see the right messages. The first year teacher among us needs to know he will receive support and be championed. The most struggling learner needs to see and know that the positive connections he built up with his/her teachers will not just be mysteriously washed away by someone with whom he does not have a relationship. Power does not bestow that type of privilege.

For these reasons, I do view CHSLSJ management’s behavior as unconscionable. I am shocked, but not disheartened that the emotions of the board’s most important constituents, the scholars, their families, and their teachers, were not even acknowledged once. The lesson learned for leaders in education is that the decisions they make often impact the faces whom they do not see. These same faces, however, have unbelievable potential to stay strong, keep hope, and become needed human leaders who act in the most conscionable of ways. Our schools, and perhaps our American times, primarily depend on this proposition.

Sincerely,

Matt Schuman

Lifelong Educator and Law Program Coach

Source: Otis, Ginger Adams. “Uncivil act to teachers”. NY Daily News. 2 July 2017. P. 18.

Choice advocates favor the idea of “voting with your feet.”

Peter Greene explains why it doesn’t work and will never work.

“A parental foot vote carries no weight. And since parents get their foot votes by trading away actual votes for board members, access to any transparency about school management or finances, and in some cases even simple access to people in charge, it’s a lousy trade. The only thing they can do is that bipedal vote thing, and as we’ve seen, doesn’t carry much weight.

“Vote with your feet” is just a nicer way for charter operators to say “Take it or leave it.”

“Meanwhile, in places like New Orleans, Florida and North Carolina, legislators continue to aid the invisible hand by cutting the competition off at the knees. The more parents are driven toward charter/choice schools, the less those parents matter, and the easier charter operators have it. So let’s systematically gut public education. If people won’t venture out of the public school building– if they won’t vote with their feet the way we need them to– then let’s coax ’em out of that building by setting fire to it. Then it doesn’t matter where the stampede heads– as long as we can catch a sliver of it, we’re good.

“Foot voting is never going to empower parents. In fact, since foot voting requires parents to give up all other forms of leverage, it’s an approach that leaves them with nothing but tired shoe leather.”

Mike Klonsky writes about Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s efforts to close another school. Rahm has left his mark as the Great Destroyer of Public Schools in Chicago.

http://michaelklonsky.blogspot.com/2017/07/fighting-another-rahm-school-closure-at.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+mikeklonsky+(SmallTalk)&m=1

Mike and his brother Fred interviewed two members of the elected school council of an elementary school called National Teachers Academy, which they are fighting to save.

“It’s both an inspiring and heart-breaking tale of a school community that has managed to survive and thrive despite district misleadership and the rigors of 15 years of top-down, corporate-style reform, only to find itself on the chopping block. After finally achieving Level 1 status, NTA has been marked for closure. Its students could be moved into an expanded (1,800 students) South Loop Elementary — an elementary school that size is criminal — and NTA turned into a new high school for Chinatown…

“The school was launched in 2002 against the background of gentrification of the South Loop neighborhood, with a fancy misleading title (it was never a national teacher training academy) under the direction of a consortium of 15 school partners including universities who promised to deliver strong professional development for teachers at a neighborhood school.

“Instead, what the school got was a takeover by a private turnaround company, AUSL, leading to teacher firings and principal churn. Since 2006, the school has stabilized, developed a strong teacher residency program in partnership with UIC and has now been declared a Level 1 school, based on its rising test scores. Most of the credit for the gains goes to the school’s teachers and students as well as its two most recent principals, Amy Rome and Isaac Castelaz.

“Niketa and Elisabeth’s story recalled the legacy of then-CEO Arne Duncan’s so-called Renaissance 2010 reform initiative which was launched by Mayor Daley in 2004. It called for the closing of more than 80 schools to be replaced by 100 shiny new charters, contract schools, performance schools, turnaround schools, etc…by the year 2010.

“I still remember Duncan speaking to Dodge Elementary parents who were angry over his handing their school over to AUSL, without any input from the community, and promising them that they would be thrilled with his new Renaissance alternatives. But by 2013, CPS was already closing many of the schools Duncan had created.

“Ren 10 was a disaster on all levels. But it was the manufactured spin of this debacle as a “Chicago Miracle” which paved the way for Duncan’s appointment as head of the Department of Education.

“WBEZ’s Becky Vevea wrote at the time:

“In 2008, Dodge was where then president-elect Barack Obama announced Duncan as his pick for Secretary of Education.

“He’s shut down failing schools and replaced their entire staffs, even when it was unpopular,” Obama said at the time. “This school right here, Dodge Renaissance Academy, is a perfect example. Since this school was revamped and reopened in 2003, the number of students meeting state standards has more than tripled.”

“But fast forward another five years, Dodge and Williams are closing their doors.

“This story must have a familiar ring to the parents and students at NTA.

“But, as Elisabeth assured us yesterday, “We’re gonna win… We are an army of parents and allies from all over the city. This is not over.”

“I believe her.”

Steven Singer reviews the panicked reaction of the charter lobby to the report by the NAACP demanding charter accountability and an end to profiteering off the backs of children.

What part of the NAACP was so horrendous and unpalatable to the charteristas?

What is so radical about accountability and transparency?

Shouldn’t local communities have the right to reject for-profit charters? Shouldn’t they have a say in whether a charter opens in their district? At present, charters are foisted onto communities whether they want them or not. That doesn’t seem right.

Charter school cheerleaders like Education Secretary Betsy DeVos call their movement School Choice. Shouldn’t communities get to choose whether they want them there in the first place? If the program is based on the free market, let them make their case to the community before setting up shop. They shouldn’t get to make a backroom deal with your congressman and then start peddling their wares wherever they want.

Moreover, if charter schools are, indeed, public schools, why should they be allowed to operate at a profit? They are supported by tax dollars. That money should go to educating children, not lining the pockets of venture capitalists and hedge fund managers.

The “backroom deal” that Singer refers to is usually not with a congressman, but with the state legislature or the state board or the governor, and it usually is the result of campaign contributions. But why should campaign contributions determine what happens to public schools?

Michigan Technical Academy in Detroit closed its doors. Teachers who had worked there on contract just learned that they would not be paid, because the school has other debts.

Teachers at the Michigan Technical Academy had contracts that required the school to pay them through the summer for work they did during the school year. But the school’s management company, Matchbook Learning, alerted teachers in an email Wednesday that the money would instead go to pay off the school’s debts.

Tough luck for teachers who counted on that income to pay their debts, feed their children, meet the mortgage or rent payment.

That’s why unions were created.

Graham Vyse, an editor at The New Republic, shows how Betsy DeVos has created a fissure within the Democratic party over school choice.

By her passionate advocacy for charters, vouchers, and every other alternative to public schools, she has put pro-school choice Democrats like Cory Booker into a bind. Booker has vociferously supported both charters and vouchers, yet as a Democrat with hopes for the future, felt compelled to vote against DeVos. It is somewhat amusing to watch him and others try to put distance between themselves and DeVos when she is carrying out the same ideas they have publicly espoused. Any Democrat who is aligned with DeVos on any part of her repugnant agenda should change parties.

“The ground definitely is more fertile,” said Preston Green, an education professor at the University of Connecticut. “I think President Trump’s support of choice does make it difficult. It might make people think twice about it, and especially DeVos’s selling of it…. You’re definitely starting to see a shift.” Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s education agenda and criticism from civil rights groups “might have made it easier for those who oppose charters to oppose them more vociferously.”

Brookings Institution fellow Jon Valant made a similar case in February, writing that “the Trump administration’s support of charters and choice may be distracting from—and contributing to—an emerging political threat to school choice programs, especially charter schools: renewed skepticism from Democrats.” In other words, with her extremist position on school choice, DeVos may be harming the very movement she helped build.

The recent report by the NAACP calling for regulation of charter schools is another straw in the wind, a very large straw, suggesting that the Democrats’ embrace of school choice is politically hazardous.

DeVos is a gift to those of us who have warned for years that privately managed charters is a decisive victory for privatization and a significant step away from democratically controlled public education.

The message of her tenure in office is that school choice is a radical rightwing strategy that defunds public schools.

She gives Democrats a new opportunity to separate themselves from the favorite cause of the Walton family, the Koch brothers, and the Republican party.

As the recent Democratic gubernatorial primary in Virginia showed, candidates who support public schools without qualification can energize their base of teachers and parents. Democrats who favor any form of privatization will be unable to call upon that base.

If Democrats hope to win back a significant share of House seats in the 2018 election, they must put support for public schools at the top of their agenda. That’s where the voters are.

Jose Luis Vilson, teacher and blogger in New York City, writes his view of the Secretary of Education here.

He writes:

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos spoke to the American Legislative Exchange Council on July 20 about school choice and her vision for dismantling federal support for our public schools. In her speech, DeVos praised the drive to privatize education through charter schools, voucher programs, and tax credit scholarships that cover private-school tuition. She hailed “new waves of legislation” that brought charter schools to Kentucky, education savings accounts to North Carolina for special needs students, and a similar savings-account program in Arizona for every student.

She went after the American Federation of Teachers, for being “defenders of the status quo” who don’t have “kids’ interests at heart.”

She criticized the AFT because “They have made clear that they care more about a system—one that was created in the 1800s—than about individual students.”

[Here is a bit of information for Betsy DeVos: the Constitution was created in the 1700s, and most of us think it is a good document.]

Vilson writes:

But let’s be clear: at the root of DeVos’s approach is the devaluation and eventual abolition of the public sphere, which often goes together with tax cuts for the wealthy.

First, the status quo is not, as DeVos puts it, the people protesting her outside her offices and wherever she appears in public. If anything, policies such as No Child Left Behind and Race To The Top moved school privatization directly to the center of education decision-making in this country. The bipartisan effort to disrupt public education created the pathway for Trump’s agenda to shake it up some more. Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) set the stage for Trump, inviting school-choice evangelists including Success Academy CEO Eva Moskowitz and former Washington D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee to meet about education before eventually calling up DeVos.

Second, as the Education Secretary in 1971, Thatcher became known as “Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher” for abolishing milk programs for children over seven years old. She was also popular for using dog-whistle rhetoric against black and ethnic minorities, claiming that Afro-Caribbeans gave cannabis to babies and different cultures would dilute England’s strong democracy. Given Thatcher’s history with trade unions, DeVos blew her own barely audible whistle to those who oppose teachers unions. This is not an accident.

DeVos’s mythological interpretation of what the founders wanted is worth noting as well. Certainly they had a lot to say about the importance of education and public schools. Thomas Jefferson also asserted that governments shouldn’t be allowed to manage schools. But there’s a difference between working with thirteen states generally struggling to stay afloat and a fifty-state country that’s one of the most powerful in the world. That’s why amendments exist. But DeVos skipped that part of civics. Just as importantly, states’ rights as the founders intended it allowed white plantation owners to keep enslaved peoples as property, whether they went to free land or not. How does one support freedom of choice by pointing at policies that literally kept entire peoples in captivity?

Make no mistake: this is no benign blueprint for public schools.

The whole raison d’être for public education is to ensure that all students get an education. As New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones astutely stated in a rebuttal to DeVos, “PUBLIC education is, at its heart, about the common good. Meaning one student’s gain should not come at another student’s loss.” It’s as if DeVos believes she runs the Department of Individualized / Personalized Opportunities and not the U.S. Department of Education, a department created specifically for “strengthening the federal role in creating equal educational opportunities for all.” Because public schools serve approximately 90 percent of eligible pre-K through twelfth grade students, the U.S. Department of Ed plays a vital role in the direction that our schools take.

For sure, public schools have had deep, institutional problems with inequity and injustice. We must acknowledge the ways our country perpetuates systemic racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia through schools. This country harms so many of our children through curriculum, funding, and unstable bureaucracy that still works as a reflection of our general social stratification. Progressive activists ought to keep in mind the plethora of frustrated parents of color who will intently listen to hedge fund billionaires offering better resourced schools. We do an injustice by not acknowledging that as we work to create better public schools.

None of these points should give someone like DeVos a platform for dismantling one of the strongest pillars of our country’s social safety net.

DeVos also took time to speak directly to teachers after a week of meetings with some of our best and brightest. She used the last part of her speech to express support for teacher autonomy, which sounds good. She is correct that the last ten-plus years of education reform have led to scripted lessons, overemphasis on standardized testing, and the muffling of teacher voices. But DeVos is effectively weakening the chair in which she sits. This includes a Trump executive order giving her office 300 days to look for examples of federal “overreach” in education, which doesn’t do much in the way of actual legislative action, but show the direction this administration would like to go in. DeVos’s appetite for deregulation, defunding, and negligence (masked as incompetence) bodes ill for a department created specifically to help our country right these wrongs.

This, along with any number of absurd news items coming out of the Department of Education these days, give me reason to say DeVos and her boss need to resign effective immediately. She is no one’s secretary of education. She serves the 0.01 percent of folks who stand to profit from ultra-conservatism.

She already has the lowest approval rating of any Trump appointee, and, like Thatcher, she continues to bring the hammer to our most fragile policy pieces with little care for public accountability. When you’re that wealthy and thatdismissive of the actual job you were hired to do, it starts to look like you were hired to eliminate the department you lead.

DeVos proves every day that she has earned her position as the least popular member of Trump’s Cabinet of Horribles. All of them are there to destroy the agency they head. She is off to a fabulous start in her program of destruction, elimination, and sneering.

The New York Times revealed what happened when a hospital decided to turn its emergency room services over to a private contractor.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/upshot/the-company-behind-many-surprise-emergency-room-bills.amp.html

“Early last year, executives at a small hospital an hour north of Spokane, Wash., started using a company called EmCare to staff and run their emergency room. The hospital had been struggling to find doctors to work in its E.R., and turning to EmCare was something hundreds of other hospitals across the country had done.

That’s when the trouble began.

“Before EmCare, about 6 percent of patient visits in the hospital’s emergency room were billed for the most complex, expensive level of care. After EmCare arrived, nearly 28 percent got the highest-level billing code.

“A small, rural hospital in Washington State, Newport Hospital and Health Services, outsourced its emergency room, as many hospitals have. Soon it started hearing from patients confused by getting large bills from the E.R. doctors.

“On top of that, the hospital, Newport Hospital and Health Services, was getting calls from confused patients who had received surprisingly large bills from the emergency room doctors. Although the hospital had negotiated rates for its fees with many major health insurers, the EmCare physicians were not part of those networks and were sending high bills directly to the patients. For a patient needing care with the highest-level billing code, the hospital’s previous physicians had been charging $467; EmCare’s charged $1,649.

“The billing scenario, that was the real fiasco and caught us off guard,” said Tom Wilbur, the chief executive of Newport Hospital. “Hindsight being 20/20, we never would have done that.”

“Faced with angry patients, the hospital took back control of its coding and billing.”

Sound familiar? That’s privatization.

Stephen Dyer writes from Ohio about the unfolding saga of ECOT, the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow.

http://10thperiod.blogspot.com/2017/07/even-with-layoffs-ecot-will-make-killing.html?m=1

It was recently ordered by a state court to return $60 million that it had charged for educating students who never logged on. ECOT complained bitterly, but the state audit showed that its enrollment figures were inflated.

ECOT is owned by William Lager, who has donated millions of dollars to elected officials over the years and received special treatment. He has collected hundreds of millions of dollars to run a virtual K-12 school with the lowest graduation rate in the nation. He thought that his generosity to politicians would protect him from accountability from abysmal results, but it hasn’t.

Lager took out ads (at taxpayer expense) to warn that he might have to lay off 350 employees if the state forced him to return a portion of his revenues. It would “hurt the children.”

The state is willing to allow him to pay his debt at $2.5 million a month for two years.

Boo hoo!

Dyer says she’d no tears for Lager. He will still clear at least 30% on his investment, probably more. He will still make a killing.

Ann Cronin taught English for many years in Connecticut, which has one of the most successful state school systems in the nation. However, Connecticut has several districts where people live in dire poverty. Under the administration of Governor Dannel Malloy, the answer to the children in these poor and under-resourced districts is privately managed charter schools– contractor schools. Malloy, needless to say, relies on hedge fund managers for campaign funding, and he is putty in their hands.

Cronin writes here that “Something is Rotten in the State of Connecticut.”

The State Board of Education just approved additional seats for Steve Perry’s Capitol Prep Harbor School, a charter school that drains resources from the Bridgeport public schools. Perry is the self-styled celebrity who once referred to teachers’ union members as “cockroaches” and on another occasion threatened a physical confrontation with critics.

Cronin writes:

“On July 19, 2017, the unelected, governor-appointed Connecticut State Board of Education approved 504 additional seats in state charter schools for next year, with 154 of those seats going to Capital Preparatory Harbor School in Bridgeport.

“GO FIGURE:

“Connecticut is in a budget crisis with every expense being monitored, yet new charter school seats, which cost the state $11,000 each, are being initiated. The cost will be more than $5.5 million.

“PLUS

“The new seats will cost the beleaguered and impoverished Bridgeport Public Schools money it cannot afford and will strip them of much needed resources. The Bridgeport Board of Education unanimously voted against the expansion plan because the cost of adding grades to Capital Prep Harbor School requires the Bridgeport Public Schools to pay additional costs for transportation and other services at an additional location.

“PLUS

“The expansion plan for Capital Prep Harbor School, approved by the State Board of Education in 2014, called for three grades to be added in 2017-2018, but Capital Prep Harbor School requested and was granted the expansion to six new grades, which increased the costs of services from Bridgeport Public Schools from $200,000 to $400,000 for 2017-2018.

“PLUS

“Capital Prep Harbor School does not serve the population of Bridgeport equitably. Based on the make-up of the community, nearly half of the students at Capital Prep Harbor should be Hispanic, but only 1/5 are, and Capital Prep Harbor has zero students who have English as their second language although there are ample children in Bridgeport who have English as their second language.

“PLUS

“Capital Prep Harbor School was approved by the State Board of Education in April 2014 as a school with its stated mission to serve the “diverse communities of Bridgeport and surrounding communities”. Capital Prep Harbor School has failed to implement that mission because of its small percentage of Hispanic students and its total lack of students with English as their second language.”