Archives for category: Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

AASA Denounces Trump-DeVos Budget Cuts and Privatization Priorities

By dianeravitch
March 16, 2017 //
3

AASA Executive Director Responds to President Trump’s FY18 Budget Proposal

Alexandria, Va. – March 16, 2017 – Earlier today, President Trump released details for his FY18 budget proposal. It is a “skinny budget,” in that it only covers discretionary funding, and within that, doesn’t fully list the impact on all discretionary programs. The proposal cuts funding to the U.S. Education Department by $9 billion (13 percent). It provides a $1 billion increase for Title I, but the increase is for states and districts to use for portability and choice. This is in addition to a new $250 million school choice/voucher program and a $168 million increase for charters, bringing the total amount of NEW funding in the President’s budget for choice to $1.4 billion. The budget level funds IDEA, eliminates ESSA Title II Part A and eliminates the 21st Century Community Learning Centers.

In response to this budget proposal, AASA Executive Director Daniel A. Domenech released the following statement:

“AASA is deeply concerned that the first budget proposal from the new administration doesn’t prioritize investment in the key federal programs that support our nation’s public schools, which educate more than 90 percent of our nation’s students. While we would normally applaud a proposal that increases funding for Title I by $1 billion, we cannot support a proposal that prioritizes privatization and steers critical federal funding into policies and programs that are ineffective and flawed education policy. The research on vouchers and portability has consistently demonstrated that they do not improve educational opportunity and leave many students, including low-income students, student with disabilities and students in rural communities-underserved. AASA remains opposed to vouchers and will work with the administration and Congress to ensure that all entities receiving federal dollars for education faces the same transparency, reporting and accountability requirements.

“AASA is disappointed at the significant cuts proposed to critical education programs, including the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Title II. FY 18 dollars will be used by schools across the nation in just the second year of ESSA implementation, and the idea that this administration thinks that schools can do this work—and the administration claim they support this work—without supporting teachers and teacher leaders, and their professional development, is a deeply disconcerting position.

“As recently as yesterday, Secretary DeVos indicated an interest in supporting state and local education agencies, and ‘to returning power to the states whenever and wherever possible.’ AASA is concerned that while the Department indicates it wants to return power, the proposed funding levels—including continued level funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and cuts to core programs in ESSA—deeply undercut state and local efforts in these areas and expand the reality of federal requirements without commensurate support, further encroaching on state and local dollars. The return of power, however well intended, when systematically and deliberately paired with low funding, translates into unfunded federal requirements.

“AASA remains committed to parity between defense and non-defense discretionary (NDD) dollars, and we are deeply opposed to the proposed $54 billion increase in defense discretionary spending being offset by NDD spending cuts. AASA supports robust investment in our nation’s schools and the students they serve, and we support increased investment for both defense and NDD funding by lifting the budget caps, as set forth in the Budget Control Act of 2011, for both. NDD programs are the backbone of critical functions of government and this proposed cut will impact myriad policy areas—including medical and scientific research, job training, infrastructure, public safety and law enforcement, public health and education, among others—and programs that support our children and students.

“Increased investment in education—particularly in formula programs—is a critical step to improving education for all students and bolstering student learning, school performance and college and career readiness among our high school graduates. AASA remains hopeful that our President, who has consistently articulated an interest in growing our economy, growing jobs, and keeping this nation moving forward, will recognize the unparalleled role that education plays in each of these goals and work to improve his FY18 budget to increase investment in the key federal K12 programs that bolster and improve our nation’s public schools, the students they serve and the education to which they aspire.”

###

About AASA
AASA, The School Superintendents Association, founded in 1865, is the professional organization for more than 13,000 educational leaders in the United States and throughout the world. AASA’s mission is to support and develop effective school system leaders who are dedicated to the highest quality public education for all children. For more information, visit http://www.aasa.org.

Categories Betsy DeVos, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization, Vouchers

Kentucky Legislators Capitulate to Big Money, Approve Charter Law

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2017 //
11

Over the vociferous opposition of parents and educators, the Kentucky state senate voted to authorize charters in the state, thus opening it up to exploitation by entrepreneurs, out-of-state corporations, and hucksters.

The threat to public schools could not be clearer, as the state senate voted 23-15 to betray their constituents and go with the big money backing private management of charter schools that have no track record of improving student achievement.

The Republican governor Matt Bevin is a Republican free-markets ideologue, so he will of course sign the legislation.

Parents will have to continue the fight to preserve their communities and public schools from the privatization vultures.

The new charters will be required to have certified teachers, which the so-called reformers said was an intolerable burden that would prevent innovation, like having untrained teachers in the classroom. The reformers’ idea of innovation sounds amazingly like the schools of the 19th century–unregulated schools with no certified teachers.

But reformers got what they wanted: charters and money. They are looking out for adult interests, not for families, kids or communities.

The bill allows for school boards and only the mayors of Louisville and Lexington to approve charter schools in those districts or cities. Earlier in the day, the Senate Education Committee added language saying charter school teachers must be a qualified teacher and that students will not be able to go to a charter school across county lines unless a regional charter is created.

The changes also require mayors to provide written notice saying they want to be an authorizer of charters and clarified that only the mayor of Louisville would be able to authorize charter schools in Jefferson County, as opposed to mayors from the county’s smaller cities.

After passing the full Senate amid criticism from Democrats on how charter schools would be funded, Republican senators fought back and filed an amendment to an unrelated House budget bill — House Bill 471 — which seeks to transfer federal funds and state money to cover the costs of students who move to charter schools.

Sen. Ray Jones, D-Pikeville, was furious at the move, saying “this is one of the worst things I have seen happen to public education in my lifetime.”

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

Kentucky: Charter Bill Passed by Senate Education Committee, Heading for Full Senate Vote

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2017 //
9

HB520, the bill that will authorize privately managed charter schools in Kentucky, was approved by the Senate Education Committee and now will go to the full Senate for a vote. The Senate is in Republican hands. The Governor is a Republican.

The politicians in Kentucky seem poised to invite out-of-state corporations to come into Kentucky and take charge of public money and taxpayer dollars.

The governor says in the linked article that the people fighting charters are only out for adult interests. He has it backwards. The people fighting charters are parents and educators. The ones who want charters have dollar signs in their eyes, thinking about how they can get a piece of Kentucky’s public school budget.

Kentucky is one of only 7 states that do not yet have charters, which is the gateway drug to full privatization of public education. Republicans in Kentucky don’t want to be different. They want to be just like everyone else, even though there is no evidence that bringing in entrepreneurs and fast-buck chuck operators will mean better education for the neediest kids. If charters in Kentucky operate the way they do in most states, they will keep out the neediest kids and hang on to the ones that make them look good.

Public school parents: Wake up and vote these guys out of office when they run again. They don’t care about you or your children or your community. They are bowing down to the almighty dollar of the Waltons and the other billionaires who want to wipe out local control and democratically elected school boards.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Hoax, Kentucky, Privatization

Charter School Leaders Meet with Betsy DeVos to Celebrate Her Agenda for America

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2017 //
10

Jeanne Allen of the Center for Education Reform posted a photograph in which leaders of charter schools met with their new champion: Secretary Betsy DeVos. She was joined by charter leaders from D.C., Philadelphia, New York, and California. The Ohio charter leader didn’t make it because of the snow. There were also leaders from the for-profit sector, including the virtual charter sector.

Betsy DeVos is one of them. Their hero now is in charge of the U.S. Department of Education, and she wants to divert billions of dollars from children in public schools to feed the charter industry. O happy day!

The charter industry and DeVos are on the same page. They hope to make enormous gains during her tenure in office. They see the public schools not as a public good or a civic institution, but as a target, a prize to be conquered, defeated, looted, and depleted. But it’s all for the kids!

Categories Betsy DeVos, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, For-Profit, Privatization

Paul Hill: Why DeVos Is Unlikely to Succeed in Promoting Vouchers with Federal Funds

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2017 //
3

Paul Hill is founder of the Center for Reinventing Public Education and a professor at the University of Washington. When I was on the other side of education debates, I served with Paul on the Koret Task Force at the Hoover Institution. He is one of the nicest people I know but we now disagree about the value of choice as a means of “reinventing” public schools. Paul is the creator of the idea of portfolio school districts, where the school board is supposed to treat schools like a portfolio of stocks, closing “bad” ones and opening new ones to replace them.

In this article, Paul Hill maintains that DeVos will not have the money to achieve her voucher agenda.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58c83826e4b0816ed87b5e43

He says that if she turns the $15 billion in federal money for poor kids, that comes out to only $600 per student, and that is not enough to fund vouchers or to induce people to open new schools to accept voucher students.

He does not deal with the recent spate of reports showing that vouchers don’t have a positive effect on academic outcomes for kids who get them, and in some major studies, have actually been shown to lower the test scores of low-performing students. So he deals not with whether vouchers will help kids but whether the federal funds are sufficient to make them happen.

He writes:

“Betsy DeVos’ most fervent supporters and opponents agree on one thing: that she would like to divert federal funds from existing public schools and cause a mass migration into private schools. But simple arithmetic tells us that these expectations about what she can accomplish—or destroy, depending on your point of view—are wildly inflated.

“The federal government doesn’t spend nearly enough money in education to have such a big effect. Federal Title I funding to local education agencies, the main tool at the Department of Education’s disposal, totals $15 billion. If DeVos were able to turn all that money into private school vouchers for students currently receiving Title I services, each eligible family would get about $600. If the same money were spread among all public school students, a voucher would be worth less than $300.

“That kind of money doesn’t cover private school tuition, which starts at about $10,000 a year. With a $600 voucher, a few families who were on the cusp of affording private education could decide that the little bit of extra money was enough to allow them either to stay in or transfer to private school. Those families might stabilize or even slightly increase enrollment in private schools. It’s unlikely that many families now attending free public schools would decide that a small discount—$600 represents about 6% of average tuition—justifies ponying up the remaining $9,600.

“The Trump administration has floated a fallback proposal, tuition tax credits for anyone who contributes to a voucher program. Donors could reduce their taxes by a dollar for every dollar they give. This approach—correctly called a tax expenditure—would have exactly the same effect on the federal government’s bottom line as a government-operated voucher program would. Readers can judge whether a deficit-conscious Republican Congress is likely to approve a tax credit that adds more than $15 or $20 billion annually to the national debt.

“Vouchers (whether funded directly or via tuition tax credits) could benefit communities that have struggling but high-quality private schools that might be preserved rather than being lost entirely. But whether a modest-sized program can do anything more than help fill up existing private schools depends on the answers to a few questions. Once existing private schools reached their current capacity, would they expand to take more students, or would new private schools emerge? Would entrepreneurs be willing to start schools knowing that even with their vouchers, families would have to pay almost full tuition? Would those schools be good enough to keep the families they attract and to grow to an economically sustainable size?”

I question whether there are a significant number of struggling but high quality private schools to accept voucher students. The good private schools have few, if any, empty seats. Not many want to accept kids with low test-scores, no matter how much voucher money they bring.

I am not as sanguine as he about the poor prospects for vouchers. I agree that the federal money is symbolic but it may be a stimulus to state’s to add their supplement, bringing the voucher up to $5,000 or $7,000. This still is not enough for voucher students to gain entry to good private schools but it might be enough for mediocre religious schools with u certified teachers.

Even if the vouchers don’t make much of a dent, DeVos’s advocacy for charters will stimulate stages to open more of them, despite the dismal record of charters in DeVos’s home state of Michigan. And of course we can count on her to bad-mouthnpublic schools in every public appearance. She will be sly. She will say she favors great schools of every kind, because she is all for the kids. She even likes “great public schools,” but she has never seen one. She will ignore the large body of research about the failure of voucher schools as well as the research showing that charter schools get results no different from public schools, and some are far worse than public schools. She certainly doesn’t care about charters’ high teacher attrition or about their unfortunate practice of excluding children with disabilities.

So while she is unlikely to achieve her lifelong dream of getting rid of public schools, she will have a bully pulpit to bash public schools. This is unjhealthy for our society and our democracy. Friends of public education should not forget that DeVos is a dedicated enemy of public schools. Ignore her honked words. Don’t be deceived. She will not change her views.

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

An Interview with Kenneth Zeichner on the Pop-Up Graduate School of Education Called Relay

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2017 //
5

The blog “Seattle Education” interviews Professor Kenneth Zeichner about the “Relay Graduate School of Education,” which exists solely to dispense credentials of dubious value to charter school personnel.

The message “#rejectrelay.”

“Ken Zeichner is the Boeing Professor of Teacher Education at the University of Washington. He is a member of the National Academy of Education and a Fellow at the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado.

“A former elementary teacher and longtime teacher educator in NY, Wisconsin, and Seattle, his work has focused on creating and implementing more democratic models of teacher preparation that engage the expertise of local communities, K-12 educators and university academics in preparing high quality professional teachers for everyone’s children.

“He has also challenged the privatization of K-12 schools and teacher education by exposing the ways in which venture philanthropy has sought to steer public policy in education, and the ways in which research has been misused to support the privatization process. His new book “The Struggle for the Soul of Teacher Education” will be published later this year by Routledge….”

It is a fascinating interview. It begins like this:

“As an introduction, could you explain for our readers: What is the Relay Graduate School of Education and why we should be concerned.

“Relay Graduate School of Education is an independent institution not affiliated with a legitimate college or university that prepares new teachers and principals and provides professional development services for teachers and principals to school districts and charter networks. It was founded in 2007 by three charter school networks (Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First) within Hunter College’s Education School and became independent in 2012 changing its name to Relay Graduate School of Education.

“Until recently, its teacher preparation programs were all “fast tracks” preparing uncertified teachers who were fully responsible for classrooms after only a few weeks of preparation. Among those who they prepared were many TFA (Teach for America) teachers in NYC. Recently, they have begin offering a “residency” option in certain locations where during the first year of the two year program their teachers are not fully responsible for classrooms and are mentored by a licensed teacher. In both the fast track and residency versions of the program teachers receive a very narrow preparation to engage in a very controlling and insensitive form of teaching that is focused almost entirely on raising student test scores. Relay teachers work exclusively with ‘other people’s children’ and provide the kind of education that Relay staff would never accept for their own children. The reason that I use Lisa Delpit’s term “other people’s children” here is to underline the point that few if any Relay staff and advocates for the program in the policy community would accept a Relay teacher for their own children. Most parents want more than a focus on standardized test scores for their children and this measure becomes the only definition of success in schools attended by students living in poverty.

“The evidence is clear that the kind of controlling teaching advocated and taught by Relay has often resulted in a narrowing of the curriculum (1), and in some cases in “no excuses” charters, in damage to the psychological health of children as evidenced in research of Joan Goodman at Penn in Philadelphia.(2)

“We should be worried about Relay because it prepares teachers who offer a second class education to students living in poverty, and in my opinion based on examining the evidence, it contributes to exacerbating existing educational inequities in both student opportunities to learn and in the equitable distribution of fully prepared professional teachers.(3)

“According to their website, it appears Relay was founded by three charter
school networks: Uncommon Schools, KIPP, and Achievement First. Can you explain for our readers what student populations these charters serve and their approach to student instruction?

“These charters exclusively serve students living in poverty, most of whom are of color. Relay teachers also work in other charters however, and in some cases they may also teach in public schools.

“Relay originally received NY State approval when they were still part of Hunter College.They have used this approval and their accreditation by the Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation the Middle States Commission on Higher Education Accreditation to gain approval to operate in other states. One could legitimately raise the question- how can a program gain approval from states and accrediting agencies that prides itself in having no theory, where few if any of its instructors have advanced degrees in education, and where much of what most people believe teachers need to know and learn how to do is missing from their curriculum, The answer is that Relay is very good at packaging and selling itself to others as offering successful teacher education programs despite the lack of any credible evidence supporting their claims. Their mumbo jumbo and smoke and mirrors game did not work however, in either CA or PA where the states ruled that Relay’s programs did not meet their state standards for teacher education programs.

“One of the more shocking parts of the Relay story is the use of Doug Lemov’s book Teach Like A Champion (TLC) as an instructional bible for the Relay program. Can you explain who Doug Lemov is and why TLC is such a toxic approach to student instruction.

“Doug LeMov is currently a “faculty member” at Relay and the managing director at Uncommon Schools, one of the charter networks that formed Relay. Lemov’s “Teaching like a Champion” is the basis for the Relay teacher education curriculum. These generic management strategies are highly controlling and are dangerous when they are the main part of what teachers receive in their preparation. Relay has argued that the choice is between theory or practice and that they focus on practice. This is a false choice, and while I agree that teacher education needs to focus on practice, and that some of these strategies are useful if they are used in the proper context, it matters what practices you focus on. Additionally, teacher preparation also has to provide teachers with theoretical background in learning, development, assessment, language, and so on. There is no attention to context, culture, or even subject matter content in LeMov’s strategies. There is also no credible research that supports their use with students.

“Relay’s list of philanthropic investors reads like a who’s who of education reform. The Gates Foundation is on the list, along with the Walton Foundation, and The Learning Accelerator – which is all about blended learning and the development of human capital. What do you think these groups hope to gain by supporting Relay?

“Yes, Relay has been heavily supported by philanthropists like the Gates and Schusterman Foundations and by venture philanthropists such as the New Schools Venture Fund as well as by individual hedge fund managers.(4) The funding of non-college and university programs that are linked to charter school networks helps these individuals and organizations further their goals of deregulating and privatizing public schools. As the charter networks continue to expand across the country and replace real public schools, there is more of a need for teachers who want to work in these schools that are often tightly regimented. Many graduates of professional teacher preparation programs in colleges and university do not want to work in these charter schools. Foundations that want to expand the proportion of charter schools throughout the country must help create a parallel set of charter- teacher education programs to prepare teachers for charter schools.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Discipline, Education Industry, Higher Education, Privatization, Teacher Education

Mercedes Schneider: A Closer Look at the Unimpressive Academic Record of Florida Voucher Schools

By dianeravitch
March 15, 2017 //
3

Recently Trump and DeVos gushed over the Florida tax credit voucher program and featured a graduate of one student who graduated from a voucher school.

This inspired Mercedes Schneider to look at the academic record of Florida’s voucher schools. It is not impressive.

Voucher schools are supposed to save students from failing schools. But most of the state’s voucher students do not come from F-rated schools or even D-rated schools. Most come from schools rated A, B, or C.

She looked at the school that produced the young woman who attended Trump’s first address to Congress. She is surely a fine young woman but her school is not. It is certainly no model of success.

She writes:

“Let us consider the gain scores of Esprit de Corps Center for Learning, the school that Denisha Merriweather attended via tax credit.

“In 2014-15 , 44 students completed assessments that produced gain scores. (The researchers cautioned about the stability of gain score results when the number of students tested is below 30. Thus, Esprit de Corps meets the 30+ test-taker condition.)

“In 2014-15, Esprit de Corps’ average gain score was -3.66 national percentile ranking points in reading and -13.52 in math.

Its average gain score from 2012-13 to 2014-15 (three years) was -0.65 national percentile ranking points in reading and -2.69 in math.

“In an effort to obtain more information on Esprit de Corps’ math gain score history, I consulted a few more FTC reports from previous years.

“According to the 2013-14 FTC report, Esprit de Corps fared better in 2013-14: 0.03 in reading (remember, a zero gain is right at the national average) and 6.9 in math (calculations based on 43 student assessments). However, its three-year average gain scores (2011-12 to 2013-14) in both reading and math were -0.65 and -2.69, respectively, which indicates lower gains in previous years, especially in math.

“In 2012-13, Esprit de Corps had only a slightly negative math gain score (-1.3), and a slightly positive reading gain (1.3). Still its three-year combined gain score in math (2010-11 to 2012-13) was notably negative (-4.3). Three-year reading was close to zero (0.3). (Score based on 47 student assessments.)

“In 2011-12, Esprit de Corps’ math scores were again especially low (-12.4), and its reading gains were also negative (-2.6) based on 47 student assessments. And again, its three-year average gain in math (2009-10 to 2011-12) was particularly low: -3.8. Its reading gain was negative but close to zero: -0.20.

“Esprit de Corps has an arguably established history of negative gains in math, as confirmed by its three-year scores from 2009-10-to-2011-12 to 2012-13-to-2014-15.

“This school-level reality complicates pitching Florida vouchers via tax credits as an across-the-board, superior public school alternative based on test score outcomes.

“Nevertheless, it seems that the push for vouchers in the DeVos era is one conveniently deaf to evidence and infused with the superiority of ideology.”

Categories Accountability, Betsy DeVos, Corporate Reformers, Education Reform, Florida, Privatization, Vouchers

Rolling Stone: Betsy DeVos, the Christian Right, and the Plan to Evangelize America’s Public Schools

By dianeravitch
March 14, 2017 //
8

Janet Reitman, a contributing editor at Rolling Stone and author of “Inside Scientology: The Story of America’s Most Secretive Religion,” investigated the like-minded evangelical world of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in this article.

The appointment of DeVos is a big win, she says, in the religious right’s crusade to capture control of American culture. “Her appointment as education secretary marks the crowning achievement of the Christian right’s campaign to infiltrate America’s secular institutions.”

Reitman documents the evangelical organizations that have carefully prepared the way for this moment, building power in state races and now wining the presidency. There is irony, to be sure, in the fact that Donald Trump was their instrument to win national power since he embodies the antithesis of their values in his own life.

The DeVos family is part of a super-rich cabal of the right that has worked behind the scenes for many years to create institutions that would advance their policies and values.

The DeVos family – which includes 91-year-old patriarch and Amway co-founder Richard “Rich” DeVos Sr., his wife, Helen, their four children and their spouses – has been one of the driving forces behind a stealth campaign powered by a small group of Republican billionaires to chip away at America’s secular institutions: the pig bones, so to speak, of our society. According to a recent analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, the family, whose net worth is estimated at $5.6 billion, gave $10 million to national GOP candidates and committees during the 2016 cycle alone. But this amount pales to the gargantuan sums they have channeled into state and local races, evangelical and free-market think tanks, advocacy groups, foundations, PACs, Super PACs and other dark-money organs that have effectively created a shadow political party within the GOP.

Regular attendees at the Koch brothers’ biannual summits, the DeVoses have been healthy benefactors of several Koch-seeded groups that advance an anti-tax, anti-regulatory agenda, including the charitable arm of Americans for Prosperity and the FreedomWorks Foundation. What distinguishes the DeVoses within the Kochs’ circle of power, however, is their conservative Christian worldview, which over the past four decades has helped fuel what is now a $1.5 billion infrastructure composed of thousands of churches and “parachurch” ministries, as well as Christian TV, radio and Internet channels; Facebook pages and other forms of social media; books; conferences; camps; prayer groups; legal organizations – an entire universe that many Americans may be wholly unaware of. Through these channels has come a single, unified message merging social conservatism, free-market capitalism and American exceptionalism: the belief that the rights and freedoms spelled out in the U.S. Constitution were mandated by God….

A staple in modern evangelical teachings is the concept of Christian spheres of influence – or what the evangelical business guru Lance Wallnau dubbed the “Seven Mountains” of society: business, media, religion, arts and entertainment, family, government, and education – all of which urge the faithful to engage in secular culture in order to “transform” it. The goal is a sweeping overhaul of society and a merging of church and state: elevating private charity over state-run social services, returning prayer to school and turning the clock back on women’s and LGBTQ rights. It would also be a system without a progressive income tax, collective bargaining, environmental regulation, publicly funded health care, welfare, a minimum wage – a United States guided by a rigorously laissez-faire system of “values” rather than laws….

What became clear as the 2000s progressed was just how much these two agendas had fused. Under the direction of Charles and David Koch, and with increasing influence from the likes of the DeVos family, the Republican big tent shifted, from the Grand Old Party to what one longtime strategist who’s spent years mapping these networks refers to as the “Grand New Alliance” of libertarianism, populism and religious conservatism. (In the last election cycle, the DeVoses pledged $1.5 million to Freedom Partners Action Fund, which has been called the Koch network’s “secret bank.”) This new perspective, sometimes called the “biblical worldview,” was being sold at special “pastor policy briefings” across the country, in the hopes of politicizing the evangelical leaders who would then, in turn, rally their troops. At one I attended in Orlando, in 2012, David Barton, a former vice chair of the Texas Republican Party and a leading Christian nationalist, patiently explained to a room of Florida pastors why a radically reduced federal government was part of God’s plan. Jesus, for example, was opposed to the capital-gains tax, Barton said, citing passages in the books of Romans and Matthew.

“Without the libertarians and Tea Party brand, the Christian right would still be somewhat on the fringe of American politics,” the strategist, who asked for anonymity, explains. “But with the economic message, now we’ve got something that is more powerful and more dangerous from a progressive point of view.”

The result has been sweeping electoral power: According to figures published in The Washington Post, in states where the Koch network is most active, including the DeVoses’ home state of Michigan, Republicans control 100 percent of the state legislative majorities, 80 percent of governors, 77 percent of senators and 73 percent of U.S. House members. In 2016, evangelicals and born-again Christians constituted 43 percent of Trump’s total vote. Conservative Christians have been tapped to occupy the top Cabinet posts in the departments of Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice; they are also set to serve as the president’s director of National Intelligence and head of the CIA. The vision is simple, as the political strategist puts it: “What they want is for churches and nonprofits and business to run the country.”

The issue that Betsy and Dick DeVos adopted as their own is school choice. They ignored its racist origins and concentrated on selling it to black and brown communities. Their highest priority was vouchers to allow public money to flow to religious schools. When their effort to revise the Michigan state constitution to permit vouchers was revpbuffed by voters in 2000, they embraced charters as the best vehicle to undermine “government schools.”

Betsy DeVos became the chairwoman of several nonprofits that were consolidated to become the national powerhouse behind the movement: the American Federation for Children. Along with its tax affiliate, the Alliance for School Choice, the organization published glossy brochures featuring pictures of smiling children of every race, with endorsements from African-American and Democratic politicians, including Sen. Cory Booker, then an upstart city councilman from Newark, New Jersey, who joined the board of Alliance for School Choice in 2002.

But the movement’s real agenda was less about helping black families than creating a nationwide push for school choice. Leading the charge was the Great Lakes Education Project, or GLEP, a Michigan-based group created by the DeVoses to strong-arm state legislators. The result was a complete overhaul of the Michigan legislature. “In education policy, there would be times where they didn’t have votes – maybe 10 or 15 Republicans who didn’t want to vote for totally expanding the charter-school cap,” says Brandon Dillon, who served in the Michigan Statehouse before becoming the state Democratic chair. “And they would slowly, through the speaker of the house, bring them in, one by one, and basically threaten them with hundreds of thousands of dollars spent against them in the primary.” Though the voucher fight had been lost, charter schools, which receive government funding but operate independently of the public-school system (and are seen by conservative policy groups as a gateway drug to privatization) sprang up across the state.

At the national level, Dick and Betsy DeVos founded a group called All Children Matter, which funded PACs to repeat the process in multiple states. In 2003, its first year, ACM spent $7.6 million “directly impacting statewide and state legislative elections in 10 targeted states,” according to its media materials, winning 121 out of 181 races, “phenomenally successful for a political organization.” Thirty states and the District of Columbia currently have some form of school-choice legislation on the books. Some of the most expansive are in Louisiana, Arizona and Indiana, where Gov. Mitch Daniels, backed by ACM, launched a private-school vouchers program in 2011. Two years later, then-Gov. Mike Pence greatly expanded the program, creating what Mother Jones described as “a $135 million annual bonanza almost exclusively benefiting private religious schools.”

The downside of this, as became clear in public-school systems across the country, is charter schools and voucher programs entice parents with the promise of more “options,” while weeding out the children that neither charters nor private schools have the capacity to educate. Many parents have opted for “choice,” only to be turned away. This is particularly acute with regard to kids with behavioral issues like attention-deficit disorder. “The words are ‘Your child may be better served elsewhere,’ ” says one Michigan legislator.”

Her goal: diminish the role of government, rely on the private sector.

To see that philosophy at work, Reitman traveled to Grand Rapids and Holland, Michigan, home of the DeVos family and Amway. There she interviewed a man who works for the family and praised their generosity:

“If there’s a kid on the corner without a coat, the city will rally behind him and there’ll be hundreds of coats donated,” Ross says. “But very rarely does anybody take the time to ask, ‘Why doesn’t he have a coat?’ ”

Categories Betsy DeVos, Billionaires, Corporate Reform, Democracy, Deregulation, Funding, Privatization, Religion, Separation of church and state, Vouchers

Mike Klonsky: Earth to New York Times: Rahm Did NOT Fix the Chicago Public Schools

By dianeravitch
March 14, 2017 //
27

Mike Klonsky, veteran activist in Chicago, was surprised to read in the New York Times that the public schools of Chicago were the fastest improving urban schools in the nation and that their improvement was due to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s wisdom in choosing principals. This ran counter to everything he knew.

He writes:

I’m not sure who in Rahm Emanuel’s oversized City Hall PR Dept. planted this story in the New York Times, but kudos to them for getting this piece of fluff past the fact checkers and custodians of common sense. Peter Cunningham swears it wasn’t him, but I congratulated him anyway.

The Op-ed by David Leonhardt, “Want to Fix Schools, Go to the Principal’s Office” focuses on Chicago and gives all the credit to the mayor and CPS super-principals for the district’s supposed “fastest in the nation” gains in student achievement, rising graduation rates and lower dropout rates.

Using cherry-picked data, he makes a case that Chicago is on or near the top of the nation’s public schools, even while 85% of its students continue to live in poverty and the entire district teeters on the brink of financial collapse.

In other words, Leonhardt is whistling past the graveyard. He’s over his head when it comes to writing about education in Chicago.

All this reminds me of the Arne Duncan, Chicago Miracle in 2008, when no success claim about turnaround schools was ludicrous enough to be challenged by a compliant media.

As for fewer dropouts and spiraling graduation rates, I’d love to believe the reports but don’t know how anybody can, given CPS’s history of deception in reporting such data.

Klonsky notes that these are difficult days for Chicago principals because of decisions made by the mayor, like privatizing custodial services:

Ironically, Leonhardt’s pat on the principal’s head comes at a time when Chicago principals are threatened with 30% budget cuts and are being hard hit by the board’s privatization scheme’s which have left their buildings in shambles, massive staff cuts and exploding class size. Not to mention the fact that CPS principals are rarely in a school long enough to lead any substantial school improvement effort.

Lest we forget, Mayor Rahm made history by closing 50 public schools in one day, a feat for which he will live in infamy. And activists led by Jitu Brown had to conduct a 34-day hunger strike to persuade the mayor to keep a community high school open.

In assessing the article’s claims, Klonsky interviews Troy LaRiverere, one of the city’s star principals, who was fired by Emanuel after LaRiviere criticized him. Troy is now president of the Chicago Principals and Administrators Association. LaRivere said:

Chicago principals are working in a district that continues to make it far more difficult for them to do their jobs. They pull one resource after another. For example, if you’re a CPS principal now, you can’t have an assistant principal. If you really value the position as the article claims, then you invest in the position. The words don’t line up with deeds.
Finally, we’re all not making the gains we could be making if they invested in us and in the schools. The principals that are making gains are making them, not because of the system, but in spite of CPS.

Klonsky says that Chicago principals have learned how to do “more with less.” Meanwhile Mayor Rahm is looking for newbies to replace the veterans. And says Klonsky:

But to single them out over classroom and special-ed teachers, who have been steadfast, even while baring the brunt of cuts, losing their planning time while class sizes explode, is divisive and misleading at best.

Categories Budget Cuts, Chicago, Emanuel, Rahm, Principals, Privatization

David Hornbeck: Charter Schools Are Not Education Reform

By dianeravitch
March 13, 2017 //
5

David Hornbeck is a veteran education reformer, old-style, meaning he actually has experience running school districts and states. He was superintendent of the Philadelphia schools, state superintendent of Maryland and Kentucky, and led the implementation of KERA (the Kentucky Education Reform Act).

In this post, Hornbeck writes that he once believed that charter schools were “reform,” but he no longer does.

“As Philadelphia’s Superintendent of Schools, I recommended the approval of more than 30 charter schools because I thought it would improve educational opportunity for our 215,000 students. The last 20 years make it clear I was wrong.

“Those advocating change in Maryland’s charter law through proposed legislation are equally committed to educational improvement. They are equally wrong. New policy should not build on current inequities and flawed assumptions, as the proposed charter law changes would do.”

I admire people who are willing to listen, Watch, learn, and change their minds. Why did Hornbeck change his mind?

He paid attention to evidence. Imagine that!

On average, charter schools don’t get better academic results than public schools.

Charter funding negatively affects public schools, creating opportunities for a few but inequities for the many. He writes: “Opportunity for the 13,000 charter school students in Baltimore City is in part funded by the loss of opportunity for the remaining 70,000 students without a commensurate performance improvement by charter school students.”

In addition, charters may harm the credit ratings of urban districts by creating inefficiencies: As Moody’s reported, “charter schools pose the greatest credit challenge to school districts in economically weak urban areas and may even affect their credit ratings.”

Contrary to the claims of charter advocates, “States with “stronger” charter laws are not doing better: Advocates say we need a “stronger” charter law, noting that Maryland ranks near the bottom. Pennsylvania’s law is ranked much higher, yet its charter growth is contributing significantly to a funding crisis that includes draconian cuts to teachers, nurses, arts, music and counselors in Philadelphia.”

The changes proposed in Maryland will make it harder to get and keep the best teachers:

“The proposed “stronger” law undermines collective bargaining that protects teachers from politics and favoritism and has been crucial to improvement in compensation and benefits. It would create a two-tiered system in which charter teachers would have to organize and bargain separately with each charter opting out of the larger system’s contract. Unionization is not the problem. There are no unions in many of the nation’s worst educational performing states. All schools, charter or traditional, must pay competitive salaries and benefits to attract experienced, skilled teachers who can succeed with all children.”

Charters do not serve the children with the greatest needs.

If Maryland passes the proposed charter law, it will make the education system incoherent and inefficient.

This is not reform.

Hornbeck describes what real reform is. His short list does not include charters.

Categories Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Failure, Maryland, Privatization
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »