Archives for category: Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Two Public Schools in Los Angeles Win Grants to Replicate from Pro-Charter Organization

By dianeravitch
April 15, 2017 //
20

The Los Angeles organization Great Public Schools Now has awarded grants of $750,000 to two successful public schools to replicate themselves in new schools. This corporate-funded entity wants to demonstrate that it favors “all” successful schools, not just charter schools. Alex Caputo-Pearl correctly called them out for “bait-and-switch.”

The assumption behind the grants is the same as the charter school theory: Some schools have a secret sauce and “high-quality seats” and they should be replicated.

Soon there will be chains derived from these two schools. This is truly the factory model of schooling, a product that can be built, replicated and brought to scale.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Los Angeles, Privatization

Valerie Strauss: Why Does California Allow Charters to Open Where They are Not Needed?

By dianeravitch
April 14, 2017 //
5

Valerie Strauss read the report prepared by Gordon Lafer for “In the Public Interest” about California’s lavish spending on facilities for charters where they are not needed. She reported here.

She writes:

The report says that “nearly 450 charter schools have opened in places that already had enough classroom space for all students — and this overproduction of schools was made possible by generous public support, including $111 million in rent, lease, or mortgage payments picked up by taxpayers, $135 million in general obligation bonds, and $425 million in private investments subsidized with tax credits or tax exemptions.” These amounts are based on only a portion of the state’s charter schools for which data was available, so the true funding amounts given to charters in communities that don’t need more classrooms “is almost twice as great.”

In California, traditional school systems can’t build new schools if enrollment demands it because of the way the state decides when it will give state bond funds to build a new school. According to the report, it does this by comparing existing classroom space with the student population projected over the next five years. Charter schools don’t have such a requirement.

They don’t need the permission of the local school district to open a charter. If they are turned down, they can appeal to the county school board. If they are turned down again, they appeal to the state board, which rubber-stamps almost every charter application with out regard to need.

The rationale of the charter industry is the same as that of Betsy DeVos: choice is an end in itself. It doesn’t matter if the charters offer better education; it doesn’t matter if they don’t get better test scores. All that matters is choice. DeVos agrees. So does Donald Trump. Choice, choice, choice, whether needed or not, whatever it costs.

Categories Betsy DeVos, California, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization

Connecticut: Charter-Loving Dem Governor Malloy Will Not Seek Re-Election

By dianeravitch
April 13, 2017 //
4

Jonathan Pelto reports that Connecticut Governor Malloy will not run for a third term.

He has spent his time in office promoting the charter school agenda and undermining public schools, the teaching profession, and higher education, which are major drivers of Connecticut’s economy.

Connecticut teachers and parents: Get involved and find a candidate who supports public education. Get active or get overlooked.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Connecticut, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization

Who is the Walton Family Foundation Funding?

By dianeravitch
April 13, 2017 //
42

It is very instructive to scan the long list of organizations that are funded by the Walton Family Foundation. Some will surprise you. Some will not. Here is what we know about this foundation. The Walton Family (beneficiaries of Walmart) is the richest family in America. There are many billionaires in the family. Like Betsy DeVos, they don’t like public education. They don’t like regulation. They love the free market. They don’t like unions. Individual family members have spent millions on political campaigns to support charters and vouchers. The Foundation also supports charters and school choice.

In 2015, the Walton Family Foundation spent $179 million on K-12 education grants. They are in the midst of a pledge to spend $1 billion to open more charters, and they have targeted certain cities for their beneficence (Atlanta, Boston, Camden, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Memphis, New Orleans, New York, Oakland, San Antonio and Washington, D.C.) Their goal is to undermine public education by creating a competitive marketplace of choices. They and DeVos are on the same page.

I suggest you scan the list to see which organizations have their hand out for funding from one of the nation’s most anti-public school, anti-union, rightwing foundations.

Here are a few of their grantees:

Black Alliance for Education Options (BAEO), run by Howard Fuller to spread the gospel of school choice: $2.78 million

Brookings Institution (no doubt, to buy the annual report that grades cities on school choice): $242,000

California Charter Schools Association: $5 million

Center for American Progress (theoretically a “centrist Democratic” think tank): $500,000

Charter Fund, Inc. (never heard of this one): $14 million

Chiefs for Change (Jeb Bush’s group): $500,000

College Board (to push Common Core?): $225,000

Colorado League of Charter Schools: $1,050,000

Editorial Projects in Education (Education Week): $70,000

Education Reform Now: $4.2 million

Education Trust, Inc. (supposed a “left-leaning advocacy group”): $359,000

Education Writers Association: $175,000

Educators for Excellence (anti-union teachers, usually from TFA): $925,000

Families for Excellent Schools (hedge fund managers who lobby for charter schools in New York City and Massachusetts): $6.4 million

Foundation for Excellence in Education (Jeb Bush’s organization): $3 million

High Tech High Graduate School of Education (this one stumped me; how can a high school run a graduate school of education?): $780,000

KIPP Foundation: $6.9 million

Leadership for Education Equity Foundation (this is TFA’s political organization that trains TFA to run for office): $5 million

Massachusetts Charter Public School Association (this funding preceded the referendum where the citizens of Massachusetts voted “no mas” to new charters): $850,000

National Public Radio: $1.1 million

National Urban League: $300,000

Pahara Institute: $832,000

Parent Revolution: $500,000

Relay Graduate School of Education (that pseudo-grad school with no professors, just charter teachers): $1 million

Schools That Can Milwaukee (Tough luck, the Working Families Party just swept the school board): $1.6 million

StudentsFirst Institute: $2.8 million

Teach for America (to supply scabs): $8 million

The New York Times: $350,000

Thomas B. Fordham Institute: $700,000

Urban Institute (supposedly an independent think tank in D.C.): $350,000

To be fair, in another part of the grants report, called Special Projects, the Walton Family Foundation donated $112,404 to the Bentonville Public Schools and $25,000 to the Bentonville Public Schools Foundation, in the town where the Waltons are located. Compare that to the $179 million for charters and choice, and you get the picture of what matters most.

Categories Billionaires, Black Alliance for Educational Options, Charter Schools, Chiefs for Change, Common Core, Corporate Reform, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, KIPP Charter Schools, Massachusetts, Media, Privatization, School Choice, StudentsFirst, Teach for America, Walton Foundation

New Study: Why Teachers Created a New Genre: The “I Quit” Letters

By dianeravitch
April 12, 2017 //
34

There is a photograph circulating on Twitter of a teacher recruitment fair in Michigan, in a large room with many tables staffed and ready for recruits. But the room is empty. It is a sad picture, dramatizing the effect of the current policy atmosphere on the profession.

Please note that the empty job fair was held in Michigan. That is Betsy DeVos’s home state. Apparently in her dream school of the future, computers will replace teachers. That has long been the gospel of Jeb Bush. If you harass teachers enough, they will go away and everyone can go digital.

A new study was just released by two professors at Michigan State University analyzing what they call a new genre: the teacher resignation letter.

I have posted many resignation letters on this site. They are usually anguished, sometimes angry, always sorrowful. They come from people who had a calling to teach, but could not stand the demands on them by administrators nor the frequency of high-stakes testing. Working in a climate that requires compliance and subservience, one that expects you to abandon your professional ethics, is not appealing for most professionals.

I have posted many such letters. The one that got the most overwhelming response was written by North Carolina teacher Kris Neilsen. It was published October 27, 2012, and received 165,000 views. Nearly 900 people commented on it. It went worldwide.

Here is the report on the teacher resignation letter as a genre:

In a trio of studies, Michigan State University education expert Alyssa Hadley Dunn and colleagues examined the relatively new phenomenon of teachers posting their resignation letters online. Their findings, which come as many teachers are signing next year’s contracts, suggest educators at all grade and experience levels are frustrated and disheartened by a nationwide focus on standardized tests, scripted curriculum and punitive teacher-evaluation systems.

Teacher turnover costs more than $2.2 billion in the U.S. each year and has been shown to decrease student achievement in the form of reading and math test scores.

“The reasons teachers are leaving the profession has little to do with the reasons most frequently touted by education reformers, such as pay or student behavior,” said Dunn, assistant professor of teacher education. “Rather, teachers are leaving largely because oppressive policies and practices are affecting their working conditions and beliefs about themselves and education.”

Consider, for example, the open resignation letter of Boston elementary school teacher Suzi Sluyter, which was posted on a Washington Post blog:

“In this disturbing era of testing and data collection in the public schools,” she wrote in part, “I have seen my career transformed into a job that no longer fits my understanding of how children learn and what a teacher ought to do in a classroom to build a healthy, safe, developmentally appropriate environment for learning for each of our children.”

Sluyter, who had taught for more than 25 years, concluded the missive: “I did not feel I was leaving my job. I felt then and feel now that my job left me. It is with deep love and a broken heart that I write this letter.”

Such feelings of abandonment were common in the resignation letters, the researchers said in one of the studies. That paper, published in the April issue of the journal Linguistics and Education, is titled “With regret: The genre of teachers’ public resignation letters.” Dunn’s co-authors were Jennifer VanDerHeide, MSU assistant professor of teacher education, and MSU doctoral student Matthew Deroo.

Another study indicates that by posting their resignation letters online, educators are gaining a voice in the public sphere they didn’t have before. That paper, which will appear in the May issue of the journal Teaching and Teacher Education, was co-authored by MSU doctoral students Scott Farver, Amy Guenther and Lindsay Wexler.

“All of the teachers’ resignation letters and their later interviews [with researchers] attested to the lack of voice and agency that teachers felt in policymaking and implementation,” the study says.

Dunn said administrators must allow teachers to engage in the development of curriculum and educational policies so they do not feel like they have no choice but to resign (and then publicly declare it) in order to get their voices heard.

The third study, forthcoming in Teachers College Record, suggests the public resignation letters combat the “teacher blame game” and the prevalent narrative of the “bad” teacher. These are common claims – whereby teachers are blamed for school and societal failures – used by conservative education reformers to advance accountability measures to evaluate teachers, Dunn said.

But the resignation letters, rather than painting educators as disinterested and lazy, illustrate their intense emotion. “The letters are filled with emotion, with regret, and with an overarching personal and professional commitment to the best needs of the children,” the study says.

Ultimately, Dunn said, policymakers should heed teachers’ testimonies and support a move away from efforts to “marketize, capitalize, incentivize and privatize public education, in order to do what is best for children, not for the bottom line.”

“In the absence of such moves, teachers’ working conditions, and thus students’ learning conditions, are likely to remain in jeopardy.”

Here’s the paper to which the Michigan State article refers:
(accessible for free if you qualify in certain categories, or if you
pony up $35 if you don’t):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898589817300487

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Privatization, Teacher Shortage, Teachers and Teaching, Testing

Gayle Green: Corporate School Reform and the Cynical Manipulation of the English Language

By dianeravitch
April 11, 2017 //
22

Gayle Green is a professor of English at Scripps College. She is writing a book about the corporate reform in higher education.

In this article, she describes how corporate reformers have taken guidance from Orwell’s “1984” in their deliberate distortion of language to mask reality.

She writes:

“In this post-truth age that’s done away with facts, George Orwell’s 1984 has soared to the top of the charts. But in the world of public education, it’s been 1984 for quite some time. And we didn’t even need the clumsy apparatus of a totalitarian dictatorship to bring it about. All we needed was some slick PR and smiley corporate faces and a media ready to spit back the buzzwords they’d been fed – failing public schools, no excuses, accountability, choice, access for every child, closing the achievement gap – repeating them so often that they passed for truth.”

In the current dystopian world of public education, the new Secretary of Education is the leading enemy of the nation’s public schools.

DeVos should be no surprise. She is the culmination of nearly two decades of creeping privatization.

“But DeVos should come as no surprise: she is the culmination of the way things have long been headed. No Child Left Behind, signed into law in January 2002, brought to us by George W. Bush and the moneyed interests he represented, arrived in clouds of rhetoric about “access” and “civil rights.” It announced itself as “an act to close the achievement gap with accountability, choice, flexibility, so that no child is left behind.” But this was never about reform or access or leveling the playing field: it was about opening up public education as a market, siphoning off tax dollars to charters and for-profit vendors, shifting public funds from a system that had public oversight and control to private interests. Education was a rich, untapped market with billions of federal dollars there for the taking. Schools, panicked at having their survival based on standardized test scores, invested heavily in testing technology. Multinational testing corporations, publishing companies, ed-tech ventures rushed in with their wares: software for administering tests, test preps, pre-tests, post-tests, tests scoring, lesson plans, teaching modules, assessment devices; entire new industries sprang into being….

“It’s been quite a feat, transforming teachers, who were once our friends and allies, to the enemy. A real sleight of hand, getting the public to trust those altruistic billionaires over those greedy, opportunistic teachers. Trust a billionaire to have the public’s interest at heart – that spin worked so well it landed us with Trump. But in the world of 1984, two plus two equals five: “Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by [the Party’s] philosophy.”

Put kids in front of computers, increase screen time, increase class size – and call it personalized. Depersonalized might be a better word – or perhaps personalised, for Pearsons, the multibillion-dollar transnational corporation that’s siphoned off untold billions of federal money. When teachers protested that students from disadvantaged backgrounds tend not to test well, having not had the benefit of tutors and test-prep programs, GWB said they were making “excuses,” showing “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Yet it’s painfully clear that using test scores to determine the survival of schools only further disadvantages the disadvantaged, and, far from leveling the playing field, tilts it even more. “No excuses” became a mantra of corporate reformers, an excuse for shutting down public schools and moving in with charters, an excuse to ignore poverty and blame teachers for conditions that make teaching impossible – conditions assured by inequities that billionaire reformers have themselves brought about.”

Hundreds of schools have been closed. Thousands of teachers drummed out of their profession. Philadelphia’s Rescue Plan devastated the public schools. Arne Duncan’s Renaissance 2010 came and went with more public schools closed, more children sent to privately managed charter schools. “Choice, choice, choice,” the corporate reformers say, but neglect to mention that the schools make the choices, not the families. The one choice that is off the table is the neighborhood school.

“The confounding of language at its most basic level reduces us to a state of civic catatonia: we can’t think about these issues, let alone discuss them or act against them, when they’ve been so obfuscated, when words have been so twisted.”

The deliberate distortion of language has enabled a corporate coup, the selling out of public education to billionaires and entrepreneurs.

This is an article you can send to your friends who want a short summary of one of the biggest scam of our lifetimes.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Corporate Reformers, Democracy, Education Industry, Fraud, Hoax, Privatization, School Choice, Testing

Indiana Officials Planning State Takeover of Gary and Muncie Schools

By dianeravitch
April 11, 2017 //
5

The far-rightwing organization ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Coucil) owns the state of Indiana. ALEC is determined to crush public education. Check out ALEC exposed, a website that show the ALEC agenda for charters, vouchers, and state takeovers. ALEC hates democracy and local control. It hates local school boards, because they interfere with privatization. In Indiana, with Mitch Daniels as governor, then Mike Pence, ALEC got carte blanche.

Bear in mind that state takeovers have been tried many times and always failed.

I received the following update from Cathy Fuentes-Rohwer, parent activist.

“Here at the epicenter of education reform (I suppose every state thinks his/hers is the epicenter–but we do have the distinction of having a model on the ALEC website: Indiana Reform Package), our state legislature is poised to begin state takeover of Gary and now, Muncie.

“Muncie’s parents are reeling from this news. The state legislature was already planning a takeover of Gary’s public schools as they are $100 million in debt (gulp!) and, as I understand it, Gary was asking for this. But no elected official from Muncie requested this—they just slipped them into the bill.

“The economic and educational policies of Indiana have hurt Muncie particularly hard. The property tax caps have had the hardest hits on cities like theirs (this was from 2016: http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/muncie-community-schools-broke-face-115m-budget-shortfall and this from last month: http://indianapublicradio.org/news/2017/03/muncie-community-schools-changes-bus-service-will-apply-for-state-loan/). Although Indiana no longer funds their public schools through property taxes, I believe transportation is part of that and Muncie can no longer afford busing. They were asking teachers to take a 23% pay cut which failed in court! http://www.wthr.com/article/state-rules-in-favor-of-muncie-teachers-association-in-dispute-with-school-district

“In addition to tax caps, the educational reforms have had a dire effect on their schools. In the past four years, Muncie Community Schools have lost $2.5 million to vouchers going to private schools. I am also told that the students transferring out of the city schools into the surrounding smaller community schools –“school choice” in action (taking their per pupil funding) has also led to further bleeding of funds. It’s also clear that there have been some misdeeds on the part of their school board or financial officer (or both) and so some of the community members think that maybe it will be a GOOD thing for the state to take over. I shudder at the thought. I myself grew up in Michigan and went to Kindergarten in Detroit. If ever there were a cautionary tale…

“But regardless of how they got into these financial straits, the state is now setting up to take over the academics as well. All without the okay from the community, local elected legislators or community leaders. In fact, the mayor was quite harsh in response to their financial woes earlier this year: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2017/03/06/mayor-blasts-state-over-city-school-crisis/98809108/

Here is an overview of the takeover:

http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/education/2017/04/05/house-supports-state-takeover-mcs/100064346/

“And this:

http://indianapublicmedia.org/stateimpact/2017/04/03/legislators-muncie-schools-district-opposition/

http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/education/2017/04/02/state-takeover-muncie-schools-proposed/99954928/

“I’m hoping that more people in Indiana can become aware and contact their legislators to talk about how wrong-minded state takeover is! Solutions to public school problems are certainly complex, but people just don’t seem to understand that giving up local democratic control is not the answer and makes fertile ground for people who can profit off of this situation: charters, vouchers, charter management companies.

“You would like to think that when children drank poisoned water in Flint, the connection between privatization and state takeover of local municipalities would have been made across the country. Yes, you saved money–but look at the cost to children.

“Unfortunately, folks struggle to connect the dots. I fear for not just Muncie, but other school districts that our paternalistic legislators might decide to take over next.

“This is also taking place in a legislative session in which they are taking democracy away from us as a state by changing the state superintendent of public instruction (formerly held by Glenda Ritz) from elected position to an appointed one. Because we can’t even be trusted with that pesky thing called a vote when it comes to education?”

Cathy Fuentes-Rohwer

Categories ALEC, Corporate Reformers, Democracy, Education Industry, Indiana, Privatization

Laura Chapman: California Loves Waste, Fraud, and Financial Abuse So Long as the Money Goes to Charters

By dianeravitch
April 10, 2017 //
24

In response to the report from “In the Public Interest” about waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars in California facilities funding, Laura Chapman responded that the state doesn’t care if it wastes money:

This shows why the state will do nothing about fraud, waste, abuse. This is current information about charter school financing in California.

Begin Quote:
Through the passage of Propositions 47, 55, and 1D, and most recently, Proposition 51, $1.4 billion has been made available to charter schools for construction of new facilities or rehabilitation of existing school district facilities.

The state-funded Charter School Facilities Program (CSFP) is jointly administered by the California School Finance Authority (CSFA) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC). CSFA directs the financial soundness review process for the CSFP and provides certification of financial soundness for purposes of Preliminary, Advance, and Final Apportionments.

The Charter School Facilities Program (CSFP) provides fixed rate, long-term debt to schools at underwriting terms that are set by the state – not the capital markets.

A $1.4 billion program, CSFP provides low-cost financing for charter school facilities; 50% grant, 50% loan. This money is used to finance the construction of new, permanent school facilities or rehabilitation of existing school district facilities for charter schools throughout the state.
End Quote.

Nobody cares about fraud waste and abuse.

A quick check at the Gates Foundation website shows $31 million invested in amping up charter school facilities in Los Angeles, 24 million in the state of Washington, and some recent funding to promote facilities financing in Boston–not much about $20,000–sent to Bellwether Education Partners , the go-to consultancy for all things for all charter schools.

From http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/csfa/charter.asp

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Fraud, Funding, Privatization

Bombshell! California Charter Report: Hundreds of Millions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted

By dianeravitch
April 10, 2017 //
10

The nonpartisan group In the Public Interest has released a major new report on wasteful spending on charter schools in California. It is called Spending Blind: The Failure of Policy Planning in California’s Charter School Facility Funding.

The bottom line is that California spends on charter schools without planning, without supervision, and without accountability. Vast sums of public money have disappeared, as charters close or mismanage funds. Every attempt to impose accountability on the charter industry has been vetoed by Governor Brown. The State Board of Education, which the governor appoints, does not demand accountability. California thinks of itself as a blue state, but when it comes to education funding, it is a Trump/DeVos state.

The key findings:

The report’s key findings include:

Over the past 15 years, California charter schools have received more than $2.5 billion in tax dollars or taxpayer subsidized funds to lease, build, or buy school buildings.

Nearly 450 charter schools have opened in places that already had enough classroom space for all students—and this overproduction of schools was made possible by generous public support, including $111 million in rent, lease, or mortgage payments picked up by taxpayers, $135 million in general obligation bonds, and $425 million in private investments subsidized with tax credits or tax exemptions.

For three-quarters of California charter schools, the quality of education on offer—based on state and charter industry standards—is worse than that of a nearby traditional public school that serves a demographically similar population. Taxpayers have provided these schools with an estimated three-quarters of a billion dollars in direct funding and an additional $1.1 billion in taxpayer-subsidized financing.

Even by the charter industry’s standards, the worst charter schools receive generous facility funding. The California Charter Schools Association identified 161 charter schools that ranked in the bottom 10% of schools serving comparable populations last year, but even these schools received more than $200 million in tax dollars and tax-subsidized funding.

At least 30% of charter schools were both opened in places that had no need for additional seats and also failed to provide an education superior to that available in nearby public schools. This number is almost certainly underestimated, but even at this rate, Californians provided these schools combined facilities funding of more than $750 million, at a net cost to taxpayers of nearly $400 million.

Public facilities funding has been disproportionately concentrated among the less than one-third of schools that are owned by Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) that operate chains of between three and 30 schools. An even more disproportionate share of funding has been taken by just four large CMO chains—Aspire, KIPP, Alliance, and Animo/Green Dot.

Since 2009, the 253 schools found by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California to maintain discriminatory enrollment policies have been awarded a collective $75 million under the SB740 program, $120 million in general obligation bonds, and $150 million in conduit bond financing.

CMOs have used public tax dollars to buy private property. The Alliance College-Ready Public Schools network of charter schools, for instance, has benefited from more than $110 million in federal and state taxpayer support for its facilities, which are not owned by the public, but are part of a growing empire of privately owned Los Angeles-area real estate now worth in excess of $200 million.

This squandering of public funds is outrageous. Will the Legislature and the Governor demand accountability?

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, California, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Fraud, Funding, Privatization

Mercedes Schneider: The Secrets of Profiteering with “Tax Credits” for Vouchers

By dianeravitch
April 9, 2017 //
5

Mercedes Schneider explores a paper published by Carl Davis of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, in which he explains how tax credits for vouchers allow the rich to cut their taxes and make a profit. With such an alluring inducement by the states and the federal government, people of great means are able to reduce their taxes and undermine public schools at the same time. And, as they do great harm to the majority of children enrolled in increasingly underfunded public schools, they will be celebrated as “philanthropists,” when they are, in reality, raiders of the public good.

Davis’ paper begins like this:

<blockquote>One of the most important functions of government is to maintain a high-quality public education system. In many states, however, this objective is being undermined by tax credits and deductions that redirect public dollars for K-12 education toward private schools. Twenty states currently divert a total of over $1 billion per year toward private schools via special tax credits and deductions. These tax subsidies are essentially backdoor voucher programs, or “neovouchers,” as they use the tax code to provide what amount to private school vouchers even when traditional voucher programs are unpopular with the public or outright unconstitutional.

Because of the ways that state and federal tax law interact, the subsidies offered in ten of these states turn the concept of a charitable “donation” on its head by offering upper-income taxpayers a risk-free profit on contributions they make to fund private school scholarships. In these cases, even taxpayers who would not ordinarily be interested in contributing to private schools may find the incentive too strong to ignore.

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Democracy, Education Industry, Funding, Privatization, Vouchers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »