Archives for category: Privatization

Andrea Gabor posted today an update on the Dark Money behind Question 2 in Massachusetts.

https://andreagabor.com/2016/11/07/update-how-long-time-charter-funders-are-upping-the-ante-in-their-bid-to-blow-the-bay-states-charter-school-cap/

She begins:

“On October 24, I posted the story below about dark money–much of it from out-of-state–flowing into Massachusetts to support a “yes” vote on a pro-charter-school ballot question known as Question 2. In the days just before the election, those funds have increased dramatically, making Question 2 the most expensive charter-school ballot initiative in the country, ever. In Massachusetts, which has the most highly rated public schools in the nation, more has been spent by proponents of Ballot 2 than both sides spent on any other ballot initiative in state history, and more dark money has flowed to the initiative than to any state or federal election. Here are the latest totals via Peggy Wiesenberg, attorney, activist and public-school parent who did the analysis for the original post:

—Families for Excellent Schools, $15.6 million

—Other dark-money donors $2 million

–Hedge fund and other investment managers $1.9 million

–Jim and Alice Walton $1.8 million

–Other donors, $1.3 million, including a total $490,000 from Michael Bloomberg

By contrast, union spending in opposition to Question 2, was about $11 million.”

The people of Massachusetts will decide tomorrow who owns their public schools.

Denis Ian, an experienced educator in New York, has some friendly words of advice for the people of Georgia:

Dear Georgia,

Kiss your schools good-bye.

Unless, of course, you can shake yourself out of your slumber before it’s too late.

I know it’s unusual stuff for a Georgian to take the advice of a Yankee, but … here goes.

Here in New York, we woke up at the last minute … and now we’re in the fight of our lives. The tactics might be a bit different, but the aim is exactly the same: a state take-over of the schools we both pay for … and that our children attend. Now you can sleep-walk through this armageddon-in-the-making … or you can slam on the brakes and tell your governor “No, Deal”.

Read on … http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local-education/school-takeover-plan-draws-fire-deal-didnt-seem-to/nsq2b/

So … if you decide, that you’d like your state politicians to relieve you of this responsibility of managing your local schools, here’s what you can expect for your listlessness. Are you ready?

Your tax dollars will become “casino cash” for politicians. They’ll slurp up your school taxes and play politics with that loot all day long … awarding contracts to pals and getting lots of pocket-cash for themselves. Every ear-whisperer will have a chance to load up politicians with their ideas … most of which will involve experimenting on your own children. They’re the ones who get extra-screwed in this “Bad Deal” take-over madness.

You’ll see your schools change every time the political winds shift. Your kids are gonna be on this educational carpet ride … forever hostages in the game of grungy politics. Every child will be a pawn … a game piece … and you know how politicians love to play games, right?

Expect your schools to morph into unrecognizable messes with teachers more and more replaced by tablets and lap-tops and algorithmic strategies that’ll treat your kids like hamsters stuck on a wheel. I wonder if lunch will consist of pellet-food?

Expect the least qualified teachers to be hired … and for the turn-over rate to match McDonald’s. Teachers will become scripted care-takers and machine-mechanics. They’ll be data-dumpers … keeping an eye on your child’s computerized progress. Your kids’ noggins will be inventories several times a day … because they’ll be part of a living nyghtmarethat you allowed to happen.

Boards of education … those local school-governing bodies that you elect your neighbors to … will become patronage jobs … if they exist at all. They’ll be nothing for them to manage because the state bureaucrats and and legislators will be deciding what’s happening in every classroom in every county throughout Georgia. Let that sink in. Imagine … your schools run by folks who have zero expertise and less-than-zero concern for your children. Is that gonna disturb your sleep at all?

Get ready for carpet-baggers … again. Every soft-ware maker, computer tycoon, on-line executive, and textbook pimp will pitch a tent outside the governor’s bedroom. And they’ll be ready to pay-to-play so they can siphon off some of what’s left of your tax dollars. Isn’t this great fun? You get to work long and hard … and they get to play long and hard. With your hard-earned money. Who wouldn’t want a gig like that?

Let’s talk about taxes a bit more. Once this amendment passes, the fate of your schools passes into someone else’s hands … and so does your tax money. And that tax money is …. we’ll … too important not to grow over time … because the intrigue will grow every year. Do NOT LET YOUR PENS RUN DRY! … you’ll be cutting more checks every year for the rest of forever. These shrewdies will never run out of excuses to pinch your wallets and snatch your bucks.

Now … to the most important reasons to resist this laughably titled “Opportunity School District” lurch. Your children.

You are about to hand over your children’s education to the state government. Let that sink in. That’s the same authority that can barely repair the roads, deal with an ice-storm, paint a bridge, and keep their corruption to a semi-disgusting level. Do you think your kids are gonna be in good hands? Be honest.
Your life cannot be so complicated and so consuming that you can’t carve out time to vote on this asinine Amendment 1. And if it is such a busy life … explain that to your kids. Because it’s their future that’s on the line … and in your hands. Tell them what’s coming … and apologize for being too busy to care. That’ll soothe ‘em. For the rest of their lives.

Nothing … N O T H I N G … sets the course of a child’s life more than parents and schools. That partnership has made public schools the great equalizer in this nation for generations. My Irish grandfather dug tunnels in NYC … his son became a college professor. And all six of his sons … including me … own master degrees and lead professional lives. Why would you hand over your child’s future to political clowns in Atlanta? When have they ever done right by you?

So … there’s your Amendment 1 … your scheming “Opportunity School District” drivel.

It’s yours to accept or reject. One requires energy, the other requires nothing.

A Georgian warrior-mother … Stacey Freeman Gyorgy … left this simple wake-up missive for me last week. It’s about politicians. “They have become pantomime villains whose real job is to make us angry …” and, I would add, dangerously dependent.

Snatch your schools back from the brink. Shine your children’s future. Things don’t have to continue as they have. These are your schools … and your children.

You are in charge.

VOTE NO on Amendment !. It’s a BAD DEAL.

Denis Ian

p.s. pass this around … and wake some folks up.

Here is the latest poll on Question 2 in Massachusetts, whether to expand the number of charters by 12 a year indefinitely. See page 11.

Question 2 is losing in every demographic category except older Republicans.

Whites and blacks oppose Question 2 by similar proportions.

Younger voters (ages 18-39) overwhelmingly oppose it, by 71-21.

If the trends hold, this will be a massive and humiliating defeat for the corporate reformers, who have spent more on this election (at least $22 million) than on any education referendum anywhere. They won’t miss the $22 million, but they will have sustained a major setback in their plans for privatization.

A veteran educator explains why she will vote NO ON Question 2.

My background and position as a high school administrator have led people to ask me about Question 2, the ballot proposal that would allow expansion of Massachusetts charter schools. I have been around public education my entire life. My father was a Superintendent of Schools in Pittsfield, Brockton, and Weston. My husband taught English at Brockton High School for almost 40 years. I was a practicing attorney for 25 years, changed careers, and am now the very proud principal of Falmouth High School, which my own three children have attended.

With that as a backdrop, I remain baffled as to how charter schools are considered public schools, and how they can take taxpayer money to run smoke and mirrors operations.

I do not pretend to know all charter schools in the Commonwealth, but I do know the one in Hyannis, Sturgis Charter School, which has garnered not only local, but national recognition as a tip top so-called “public” high school.

This is where I get confused. I would like someone to explain how charter schools are “public” schools when the one in my neck of the woods allows for the following:

• None of its teachers are required to be licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) which oversees all of the state’s public schools, and mandates licensure of public school teachers.

• Its teachers are not subjected to the same public school educator evaluation regulations (603 CMR 35.00) that every other public school teacher is bound by (http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=8004).

• Although it claims to admit students by public lottery, it gives applicants priority status if they have a sibling attending the school, it reviews discipline records of applicants before deciding to admit them, and it outright refuses to admit students in grades 11 and 12.

The Sturgis website proudly proclaims that given its lottery admissions process, “All students who wish to attend . . . have an equal chance of getting in.” How is this possible when the enrollment policy clearly states that the number one priority for admission is whether an applicant has a sibling who attends the school? And Sturgis gets to exclude students who want to apply in grades 11 and 12? What other public high school gets to do that?

Moreover, despite the statement on its website that Sturgis “is a tuition-free, public high school [see footnote below] that accepts students through public lottery regardless of past academic records,” Sturgis nevertheless exercises discretion to condition admission upon the review of an applicant’s discipline record. That is some lottery. Indeed, I thought “lottery” meant everyone who plays has an equal chance of winning.

The Sturgis brand of lottery sure sounds more like a stacked deck than a lottery.

Sturgis is a top “public” high school that is not required to follow any of the hiring, licensing, educator evaluation, and admissions practices required of every other public high school in Massachusetts.

And Sturgis is run by a principal, excuse me, an “Executive Director,” who touts the school’s high MCAS scores – why wouldn’t he when the scores are statistically skewed due to cherry-picked students?

Indeed, according to the most recently available DESE data, Sturgis has ZERO English Language Learner students, has almost half the number of High Needs and Economically Disadvantaged students as Falmouth High School, and doled out discipline to just 12 students in the 2014-2015 school year.

I am proud of what we do at Falmouth High School, where we have been able to maintain our Level 1 status for several years now without having to resort to elitist and exclusionary admission practices. Falmouth High School students are regularly awarded top prizes in state science, history, math, foreign language, writing, music, and art competitions.

We have AP Scholars and National Merit Scholars, and our athletic teams can boast regional, state, and even national titles. Falmouth High School students have been admitted to Harvard, Yale, Brown, Middlebury, Amherst, Wellesley, Smith, MIT, Williams, Columbia, University of Chicago, the Air Force Academy, Northwestern, and a slew of other top tier colleges and universities. According to its own 2015-2016 school profile, from 2002 to 2015, it appears not a single Sturgis graduate had been accepted to Harvard or Yale — http://www.sturgischarterschool.com/documents/ProfileWest.pdf — nor to Williams, Amherst, Wellesley, or Middlebury, the top four liberal arts colleges in the country.

In its 2016-2017 school profile, Harvard was finally added to the list — http://www.sturgischarterschool.com/documents/2016ProfileEast.pdf. Nevertheless, hidden deep within the Sturgis website is a veiled warning that colleges do not always look so kindly on the school’s International Baccalaureate Programme (http://www.sturgischarterschool.org/guidance/IBCollege.html). So it runs a “Programme” with two “m’s” and an “e” at the end, that despite its fancy, pretentious sounding name, may hinder a student’s ability to enter a top college? I’d like to see that disclaimer on the website of any real public high school.

But what is most important, most impressive, is that Falmouth High School is a public school where nobody is turned away. Nobody. We don’t have the right to exclude anyone, and we don’t want that right — because we are a public school. We take every child, whatever his status or ability, and still we retain our Level 1 standing and our sense of dignity. This is what real public schools do, all of them.

As a taxpayer, I am outraged.

As a school administrator, I am angered that not only must we fight for every dollar, but we must fight to keep families from being bamboozled by so-called “public” charter schools. It is nose-on-the-face plain that charter schools are not public schools. Real public schools do not participate in elitist and exclusionary admissions practices that are axiomatically antithetical to the meaning of public education. Go ahead and let charters do what they want, but let’s stop pretending they are public schools, and let’s stop funding them as such. Please vote no on Question 2.

Mary Whalen Gans, J.D., M.Ed.

footnote: Why the need to proclaim that it is a “tuition-free public high school”? What public high school charges tuition? Is it that Sturgis is trying to connote that it’s giving something of great quality that you’d otherwise have to pay for in the private sector? Ridiculous….

The New York Times published a fair and balanced account of the heated battle over Question 2.

It notes that $34 million will (so far) be spent on this question over whether to expand the number of charter schools. Most of it is “dark money” from out of state billionaires, like the Waltons of Arkansas.

It interviews people who favor Question 2 and people who oppose it.

It says that some leaders (like Elizabeth Warren) are against Question 2, while others (Governor Baker) support it.

It notes that some civil rights groups (like the Urban League) are for it, while others (the NAACP and Black Lives Matter in Cambridge) are against it.

The good news buried in the article is that the latest poll shows Question 2 losing.

It says that advocates for charters say it will cost no new money to open more charters, while supporters of public schools insist that it is already causing budget cuts in public schools and will lead to more budget cuts and school closings.

The bottom line of the battle is at the end of the article, where Maurice Cunningham of Boston University, who has studied the money behind the charter question, says:

“if you can’t stop the hidden billionaire money in Massachusetts, then you can’t stop it anywhere.”

Conversely, if the people of Massachusetts can beat back the billionaires, despite their command of television and the Boston Globe, then citizen action can beat the billionaires everywhere.

What is so thrilling about the battle over Question 2 is that everything we have discussed on this blog is coming out into the open: the NAACP, with its call for a moratorium, has stripped away phony claims about school choice being the “civil rights issue” of our time. The billionaires’ privatization agenda is debated daily by parents and civic activists. The fact that school choice is being pushed by Republicans and opposed by many Democrats is explicit.

If the people of Massachusetts vote “NO” on Question 2, it will be a resounding defeat for the billionaires and their Dark Money groups, and it will echo around the nation.

If the people of Massachusetts vote “NO” on Question 2, it will signal their determination to build a strong public school system for all children, not simply add a few more escape hatches for a few children, which would debilitate the public schools.

A couple of days ago, New York Times’ writer David Leonardt wrote a column endorsing Question 2 in Massachusetts, which would expand charters by 12 a year for the indefinite future. He presented some studies to buttress his view that charters are “schools that work,” which he defines as “high expectations, high support.” He visited the MATCH charter school and talked to some of the researchers, who were excited about their findings. Leonardt acknowledged that not all charter schools were as effective as the ones in Boston, but nonetheless thought it was a good idea to authorize more charters in Massachusetts.

I invited Jersey Jazzman, who is a teachers and also a graduate student at Rutgers, to review the column and the evidence. Here is his response, as he is an expert on charter research.

He begins by suggesting that the comparisons in the study cited by Leonhardt are inadequate.

Because simply showing that charter school students in Boston get better test scores than similar students in the Boston Public Schools is not, I’m afraid, nearly enough evidence to support lifting the cap. In fact, the more time I spend looking at this research, the more questions I have about whether Massachusetts can reasonably expect charter expansion to improve its schools:

– Are the students who enter charter lotteries equivalent to the students who don’t? This is a critical limitation of these studies that is often ignored by those who cite them. The plain fact is that the very act of entering your child into a charter school lottery marks you as different from the rest of the population; you are taking an affirmative step the majority of public school parents are not taking in an attempt to improve your child’s education. There’s a real likelihood your family is not equivalent to a family that doesn’t enter the lottery…

It’s not always clear how to calculate the overall target population in these studies; I used the Ns that made the most sense to me.** But even if we’re not quite sure about the exact numbers, the scope of the issue is clear: the study sample is only a fraction of the total population. Which would be fine — if the sample was randomly drawn from the target population.

But clearly, that’s not the case: The sample is self-selected, because families have to choose to enter the lottery. Which means the results of the study can only be generalized to that population, because there may be characteristics of the students in the sample that are different from the entire Boston population and affect test scores….

First of all, how do we know the charters are any different than the traditional public schools regarding these school practices? Angrist, Pathak & Walters (2012) surveyed charters for their practices, which is fine… except we don’t really know how they compare to the public district schools. If we’re going to ascribe effects to these practices, we should know how they differ across our treatment and control schools.

We can say, however, that the charters have longer school days and years. This is probably a significant contributor to any effects the charters show. But is it necessary to expand charters to lengthen instructional time? Can’t Boston just do that in its district schools?

JJ points out that charters are known for their reliance on inexperienced teachers who burn out and leave within 2-3 years. Does the Boston area have enough wannabe teachers to staff a growing number of charters? Is it really a good idea to rely on policies of churn-and-burn for teachers, continually recycling inexperienced teachers to meet the demand for them?

He says that the question of cost is central to the proposal for expansion. Parents understand that more money for new charters means less money for public schools, their own community’ public schools.

JJ writes:


And, yes, there are costs. As this clever model developed by a couple of public school parents shows, districts can’t easily absorb the costs of charter expansion, which is why the state offers extra funds. Unfortunately, the state has not fully funded this program in recent years; if they can’t find the money now, how will they find even more funding in the future?

We know that charters place fiscal burdens on hosting districts, largely because they educate students who would otherwise go to private school and they replicate administrative and other costs by creating multiple systems of school governance. We know that charters are not held to the same standards of transparency and accountability as public district schools, because they are not state actors. This has created major problems in other states, incentivizing behaviors that are not in the public’s interest.

Is it not possible, given all this, that Boston’s charters are getting good results because of the cap? That limiting their expansion has increased quality and stopped the abuses that have plagued states like Michigan, Ohio, and Florida, which have let charter expansion run wild?

He concludes:

I understand Boston’s children can’t wait any longer for real improvement in their schools and their lives. But lifting the cap largely on the basis of these limited studies is not, in my opinion, smart public policy. The good people of Massachusetts have every right to question whether voting yes on Q2 is in the best interests of students both in and out of charters, and to consider the limits of the evidence presented to them as they make their decision.

And I would add, taking money away from the schools that serve the overwhelming majority of children in Massachusetts so as to open schools for a tiny minority of other students makes no sense from a public policy standpoint–or common sense. Why weaken the public schools that serve more than 90% of children in public schools to benefit the few?

As for David Leonhardt, I suggest that he visit charter schools in Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, and many other states, where charter schools are among the lowest performing schools in the state. Anecdotes do not make good public policy, nor does one visit to a “no-excuses” charter school in Boston.

This short video was made by parents in Boston.

It shows who is standing together to oppose Question 2, which would authorize 12 new charter schools a year in Massachusetts, every year for the indefinite future.

More charter schools means more budget cuts for the public schools that enroll the vast majority of students. Charters do not enroll the same proportion of students with disabilities and English language learners as public schools.

Massachusetts now has the best performing state school system in the nation. Why disrupt it?

Watch the video, share it, and send it to your friends in Massachusetts.

The billionaires are using $20 million or more to spread their pro-charter message on television and to pay campaign workers.

The parents have no money, and they need our help.

Save public schools in Massachusetts.

Ariana Prothero writes in Education Week about the “Outsized Influence” of lobbyists for the virtual charter industry.

The virtual or online charter industry is a sham and a fraud. Readers of this blog have read many articles and research studies demonstrating that these “schools” survive by the power of their lobbying and campaign contributions, not because they have any educational value. Studies, even by charter-friendly organizations like CREDO of Stanford, have repeatedly demonstrated that virtual charters have high dropout rates, low test scores, and low graduation rates. This doesn’t seem to bother state officials because…well, lobbying and campaign contributions.

K12 Inc is the biggest operator in the field. It was started by the Milken brothers, it operates for-profit, and it is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The article doesn’t mention it, but two dozen K12 Inc schools lost NCAA accreditation because of the shoddiness of the education they offered.

The article goes into detail about K12 Inc and also Connections Academy, which is owned by Pearson. It does not go into the protected status of the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) in Ohio, which has been relieved of all accountability because of its owner’s generosity to legislators and the governor.

K12 Inc owns CAVA (the California Virtual Academy), which was shown to be profitable while delivering inferior education in a powerful series by Jessica Califati in the San Jose Mercury-News. The state attorney general worked out a fine for K12 Inc, but the company continues to operate as usual. I personally communicated with a member of the California state school board to ask whether there would be any action to close CAVA, in light of its poor results, and I was told that it was under investigation by three different state agencies. I don’t know if that was real or just another way of saying “forget about it.”

There are even some in the charter industry who realize that virtual charters are an embarrassment to the whole industry.

But to date, even in Republican strongholds like Tennessee, the abysmal Tennessee Virtual Academy has escaped all efforts to close it down.

Moody’s Investors Service released a warning earlier this week warning that if Massachusetts voters pass Question 2 to expand the number of charter schools in the state, it may have a negative impact on the credit ratings of Boston and three other cities in the state.

The story appeared in the Boston Globe, which earlier urged voters to pass the controversial referendum, even though it will drain millions of dollars from the state’s public schools and likely harm the nation’s most successful state system of public schools.

The credit-rating agency Moody’s Investors Service is warning Boston and three other Massachusetts cities that passage of a ballot measure to expand charter schools could weaken the municipalities’ financial standing and ultimately threaten their bond ratings.

In e-mails sent Monday, Nicholas Lehman, an assistant vice president at Moody’s, warned that passage of the referendum would be “credit negative” for the cities.

“Depending on the Nov. 8 vote, the general credit view is the following: A vote of ‘No’ is credit positive for urban cities. A vote of ‘Yes’ is credit negative for urban cities,” Lehman wrote.

Lehman told the cities he would provide a draft analysis of the referendum’s impact on Wednesday and solicit their comment, publishing a full report after the election.

The other three cities in Massachusetts are Lawrence, Fall River, and Springfield. A spokesman for the Boston Municipal Research Bureau said a “yes” vote might cause fiscal hardship, but would likely be offset by closing public schools with empty seats (as new charters open) and concessions from teachers.

So a “yes” vote would mean closing more public schools and reducing salaries or pensions or other benefits from teachers. Why does the corporate reform industry want to destabilize the most successful state school system in the nation?

Why are so many in the financial industry pouring millions into a campaign that will obviously undermine the fiscal stability of urban districts in the state? If Moody’s understands it, why don’t the equity investors and hedge fund managers? Maybe it is because so few of the donors to Question 2 live in Massachusetts or have ever set foot in a public school. They have no skin in the game. For them, it is a hobby, not a financial decision.

EduShyster and her colleague Aaron French created a podcast about the crucial vote in Georgia on changing the State Constitution to allow the state to take over public schools with low test scores and turn them into charters or do whatever else the state wants to do.

Through the medium of audio, you are able to hear the advocates’ deceptive advertising, urging people to vote for the amendment because it will only affect “those children,” not yours.

Jennifer Berkshire interviews parent advocates, who understand that the campaign for Amendment 1 is deceptive. 140 struggling schools might be taken over, and most of them will be schools that enroll children of color.

Kent McGuire, head of the Southern Education Foundation, worries that the goal is to re-establish a dual school system. He commends the governor for taking an interest in improving education for the kids with the lowest scores, but he sees no vision of how to do that, just a managerial change.

Unless EduShyster found outliers in the discussion, the outlook for Amendment 1 is not good.

I wonder if voters know–or if Governor Nathan Deal knows–that the New Orleans takeover did not close achievement gaps, the Tennessee Achievement District failed, and the Educational Achievement Authority in Michigan failed. If they do, why are they creating yet another opportunity to privatize public schools and call it a solution to a problem they are not addressing?

In case you don’t have time to listen to the podcast, here is the transcript:

Georgia Has Something on It’s Mind: When voters in Georgia go to the polls, they face another decision besides Clinton versus Trump. They’ll also be weighing in on a single divisive sentence. Shall the constitution of Georgia be amended to allow the State to intervene in chronically failing public schools in order to improve student performance? In this episode of Have You Heard, we head to Atlanta to talk to voters, including parents, about why the proposal to amend the state constitution is so controversial.

Aaron French: Hey, everyone. Welcome to this addition of Have You Heard, I’m Aaron French.

Jennifer
Berkshire: I’m Jennifer Berkshire. Aaron, I can tell by your, somewhat far away sound, that you must be in the remote Have You Heard production studios.

French: I am indeed, in a very super secret location.

Berkshire: Do you know where I am?

French: There’s definitely something different about your voice. I can’t quite place it.

Berkshire: If you’re picking up on a slight southern accent, it’s not because I’m making fun of you. I’m in Georgia.

French: What are you doing down there?

Berkshire: I headed down to Georgia with my microphone because there’s a hotly contested question on the ballot that voters are going to be weighing in on. They’re voting on whether to amend the state constitution to give the Governor the power to take over struggling schools.

French: My understanding is what makes this really unique is that it’s the first time in history that any state has put this kind of question on a ballot for elections.

Berkshire: That’s correct, and what I discovered as I went around and talked to people who are directly affected by the question is that they have a lot to say.

French: Let’s hear from them then.

Berkshire: When voters in Georgia go to the polls, they face another decision besides Clinton versus Trump. They’ll also be weighing in on a single divisive sentence. Shall the constitution of Georgia be amended to allow the State to intervene in chronically failing public schools in order to improve student performance? Got that?

Kimberly Brookes: You’re changing the Georgia constitution, that is major.

Berkshire: By amending the state constitution voters will the State the authority to take over some 140 struggling Georgia schools. It’s called an Opportunity School District, modeled on what happened with the New Orleans public schools after Katrina. While these independent state-run districts are now popping up around the country, what makes Georgia different is that it’s the first time the question has been put before voters. You can put parent advocate and Atlanta native Kimberly Brooks down as a no.

Brookes: It’s just misleading. Pretty simple, should the Governor’s Office intervene for failing schools. There are psychological triggers. That’s my own view of that. When you think of failing, that’s horrible. You think of these little kids. You think of the teacher. “Oh, my god, yes” but “no” because what is not said is very broad. How are you defining failing?

Berkshire: If you want to see just how intense the debate over Amendment 1 has gotten, go no further that a discussion around the preamble. Those are the 14 words on the ballot that introduce the school takeover plan to voters. “Provides greater flexibility and state accountability to fix failing schools through increasing community involvement.”

Brookes: What does this mean? Will the parent be able to have a voice over a school in their area? If you’re a parent and you’re a tax payer and you contribute a lot to your taxes, do you want to not even have a say-so in your superintendent because they are going to be appointed? Do you not want to have any say-so in the operations and the spending of the school? Because you’ll lose those rights. Do you know that?

Berkshire: The answers to these questions are buried deep in the legislation that will go into effect if voters approve Amendment 1. With new powers the State can step in and close schools with persistently low test scores. It can turn them over to charter operators, it could run the schools directly or jointly with the local school board.

The decisions will largely be in the hands of a state-appointed superintendent. In other words, it’s complicated and, as Brooks sees it, political.

Brookes: Some of my, and I say my parents because they are mine, they’re hard working people, and they have a lot of other challenges. If the school system has the responsibility to do it. They should not be concerned about when their child goes to school any politics in one of the, supposed to be, most safest places and sacred structures, elementary school.

Berkshire: Brooks started advocating for parents back in 2012 when the Atlanta public schools closed a dozen schools. Community meetings were held for parent input. She says that even though parents spoke up, they weren’t heard. She’s worried that the Governor’s school take-over plan will eliminate the little voice that her parents do have.

Brookes: I decided to become an advocate because a lot the parents that I served as a PTA president, it was an eye opener for me. I didn’t realize the social problems that they had that influenced their ability to be involved in their children’s lives and to even understand what quality education looks like. I felt that it was my responsibility to start advocating for parents.

Berkshire: The question of whether of amend the Georgia constitution will be decided by voters across the state. The schools that dominate the take-over list are largely congregated in and around Atlanta. They have something else in common too. According to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, the schools on the list are attended by students who are overwhelmingly African American and low income.

Valerie Williams: Washington High was established in 1924. It was the first African American high school in the southeast. People came from far and near to matriculate here. We’ve had proud alumnus such as Martin Luther King, Jr. We have Lena Horne. We have Pearlie Dove, Nipsey Russell, Louis Sullivan.

Berkshire: That’s Valerie Williams. She’s a alumni of Booker T. Washington High School on Atlanta’s west side. It’s been on and off the list of schools that could, potentially, be taken over. It’s not the only historic African American school whose fate hangs in the balance.

Williams: What this would means for us is that, how can a state even allow a school that’s on the National Historic Registry be even in this place? That’s not only the Booker T. Washington, it’s the Frederick Douglass, it’s the Benjamin E. Mays. The schools of whom are named after great African Americans. How can you not be intentional about the success of these schools?

Berkshire: When Williams thinks about community involvement she has in mind the huge community of people who attended historic black schools like Booker T. Washington. While voters may be determining the future of these schools, Williams says their potential take-over is also a threat to the past.

Williams: What this would mean to us is our 90+ years of legacy and history would be gone. There is no other school, there is no other place in the world like our Booker T. Washington High School in Atlanta, Georgia.

Berkshire: If creating a state-run school district that scoops up struggling schools isn’t the answer, what is? Williams says that when she looks at successful schools in the Atlanta area, she sees a clear difference.

Williams: What I believe we need is the same equitable resources that schools that are being successful have. If we receive the equitable amount of resources in personnel that have made the north side successful, we would be successful.

Berkshire: Williams would also like to see the Governor whose the driving force behind the Opportunity School District, focus much more on the communities around the schools especially at a time when neighborhoods like hers in west Atlanta are gentrifying rapidly. It’s poorest residents risk being left behind or pushed out altogether.

Williams: If the Governor was very intentional about really pulling people up from the bootstrap, it’s not just education. You have to go into these communities. You have to show people a difference. You have to show people without displacing them.

Berkshire: By now you’re probably getting the sense that the debate over Amendment 1 in Georgia isn’t just about struggling schools or accountability. It’s about history and resources, who gets to make decisions and, above all, it’s about race. Take one of the ads that’s been airing in favor of the ballot question.

Audio of Yes on 1 Campaign ad:

I think it’s devastating that there’s 68,000 children that are in failing schools.

Our children cannot wait for a good education. They deserve a good education.

The Opportunity School District is not going to affect those that are already doing well.

This is an opportunity to help those students that have been failing for decades.

I just can’t imagine what those other parents have to go through. That’s why I’m voting yes for the Opportunity School District.

Vote “yes” on Question 1.

Kent McGuire: Even in the advertising that’s on television and, now, you have a person on camera, basically, saying to us, “Don’t worry, you can vote for this. This is about other people’s kids.”

Berkshire: Kent McGuire is the head of the Southern Education Foundation, a group that got it’s start 150 years ago as part of the effort to help Blacks in the South assimilate after the Civil War. He says that he can’t help but recall Georgia’s past when he considers the proposal to set up a separate school district for students who are overwhelmingly poor and African American.

McGuire: It makes you worry that this is about creating a dual system, not about creating one really high quality system for all kids. It does make you worry about that a lot.

Berkshire: The campaign to sell Amendment 1 to voters is heavy on feel-good buzz words, opportunity, achievement, accountability. McGuire says he’s noticed one notable omission. There’s no talk about what schools that are part of the Opportunity School District will actually do. Nothing about teaching or learning.

McGuire: There is no underlying vision for teaching and learning that has been expressed here or revealed, none. I don’t think people, the architects of this, believe we have a design problem in our education system. They just think we have a managerial one. That is the tip of the iceberg, is the point I would want to make.

Berkshire: Amendment 1 is running strong among backers of Georgia’s Republican Governor Nathan Deal. They’re not the only ones who support it. Priscilla Davenport says that while many of her DeKalb County neighbors are opposing the Opportunity School District, you can put her down as a “yes” vote.

Priscilla Davenport: For me, as a parent, I feel that I know what has not worked in more than 10 years. I’m willing to make a change, to try something new.

Berkshire: Davenport grew up in this metro-Atlanta county, and she says she can still recall a time when it’s schools were a draw.

Davenport: When I was younger and living in DeKalb County School District was the top school district. Everyone was moving to attend the schools in DeKalb County.

Berkshire: Today, though, Davenport’s daughter attends a high school that’s on the state take-over list. Davenport says she chose to send her daughter to the school instead of a charter or magnet because it had been slated to undergo a transformation. Four years in, she’s frustrated that not much seems transformed.

Davenport: The education level did not really increase even though the funding and the programs were put in place. A lot of those things, maybe they just didn’t work. I’m not sure but, for sure, the education level of the school did not increase. The enrollment dropped because a lot of people after seeing that, they decided to take their children to other schools.

Berkshire: Davenport says when she looks at the list of schools that could be taken over by the State, she notices something else they share besides the demographics of the students. Few of them have really active and engaged parents.

Davenport: If you check the research on parent involvement, most of the passing schools have high parental involvement and welcoming parents and gathering parents and doing things with parents and involving parents in the educational process of their children.

Berkshire: Listening to Davenport, I’m struck by just how much she sounds like parent advocate Kimberly Brooks who’s leading the charge against Amendment 1. If Brooks fears for what a state take over will mean for parental involvement in the future, Davenport says schools like her daughter’s make it way too hard for parents to make their voices heard now.

Davenport: I did realize that as parents are actively involved in the school, it’s always not a welcome door with the leadership. When you are going in school and you’re participating and you’re being very active in your child’s education life, that’s not always wanted on a higher level.

Berkshire: Davenport says she’s under no illusion that a state run take-over will be a cure-all to the problems confronting schools like those in DeKalb County. In fact, she’s aware that similar efforts in other states have been controversial and have produced, at best, mixed results.

Davenport: No one knows whether this will work or not but we are hoping that it will work if it pass because, at least, it opens a door for our community to address education.

Berkshire: Even staunch Amendment 1 opponent Kent McGuire says he has to give the Governor some credit for raising the issue of how best to educate students in Georgia who need the most help.

McGuire: We’re not saying schools that aren’t performing well don’t need help, we do. Let me commend the Governor for taking an interest in the lowest performing schools in Georgia. He was right to do so. The real question is, what’s the best way to do that.

Berkshire: Thanks for tuning into another installment of Have You Heard. If my math is correct, that brings us up to episode #8 which means that our 10-part series is almost over. If you really like what you’ve been hearing and maybe want to encourage us to do more, or have ideas about episodes we haven’t touched on, this would be a good time to drop us a line. You can find us on Twitter. I’m @EduShyster, and Aaron is @AaronMoFoFrench. Until next time, I’m Jennifer Berkshire, and that’s what we’ve heard.