Archives for category: Privatization

A report from an insider at the New York City Department of Education, in response to the first debate between Democratic candidate Bill di Blasio and Republican candidate Joe Lhota:

New York City last night was treated to two starkly different visions of public schools. We had a mayoral debate in which a progressive candidate who believes in voice for parents and communities battled a candidate in the pocket of corporations. The corporation candidate claimed that charter schools “absolutely deserve to be co-located.” The progressive candidate pointed out that he plans a moratorium on co-locations because “public school parents don’t have a voice in decisions about their own children and the building their children go to school in.“ He committed to giving parents a voice. Who has the true best interests of students at heart?

Here are the facts. Co-locations usually involve the closing or shrinking of existing schools. This process is rife with dishonesty and the manipulation of numbers. Parent and community voice is ignored. One year 14 out of 20 schools Bloomberg’s Department of Education wanted to close, in order to make room for other schools, scored above the criteria for closing a school as set by the very same department. Another school was closed even though the department’s own reviewers praised the school noting that “the positive impact is striking. Not only have the academics of individual students risen but also the effect throughout the whole school is evident for all to see.” Schools in Queens and in Manhattan were closed even though the data clearly showed that their scores were better than other schools serving similar student populations. Another school built a website showcasing extensive data demonstrating that the school in fact did a good job with its students. The department ignored the data and closed the school anyway.

Reports describe how co-locations involve taking resources and space from students in public schools in favor of those in the charter schools, leading to inequitable distribution or resources. Case studies have provided numerous examples of co-located charter schools that will only accept certain “types” of students leading to concentrations of poor students, students with special needs, and English Language Learners at the public schools in the very same building. Such inequity harms students.

There is no question that the facts support a halt to co-locations while a fair, honest and open process is established. We cannot allow direct harm to many students to continue in order to support politically privileged schools as has been the practice under Bloomberg. We need a mayor who will stand up to the demands of the powerful corporate charter lobby. We need a mayor who will defend students foremost.

I never thought I would see the day when NPR ran a story complimenting a misogynist rapper for opening a charter school. This rapper, who calls himself Pitbull, writes lyrics that are too filthy to repeat on NPR or on this blog.

But there is Claudio Sanchez, reporting on the charming phenomenon that celebrities who are not educators and who apparently have no education themselves are opening charter schools! Isn’t that wonderful! Shouldn’t we all be impresssed!

Well, no, it is not that Mr. Pitbull has a heart overflowing with love of children or love of learning. He is making a lot of money. Fortunately for the readers of this blog, we have read Jersey Jazzman and Mother Crusader, both of whom did the sort of research that NPR did not do. Mr. Pitbull has another name: Armando Perez. In Jersey Jazzman’s article, you will see Mr. Pitbull-Perez has hired Academica, a for-profit charter chain with revenues of $158 million, to run his new charter school. Academica is owned by Mr. Fernando Zulueta, who controls some $115 million in real estate in Miami, all exempt from property taxes because his for-profit schools are “public.”

The story–and the money trail–gets way more complicated, but NPR did not see fit to discover any of the backers of Mr. Pitbull’s school.

The story gets entangled in Florida Republican politics, as Mother Crusader shows.

As always, it is a good thing to follow the money. Who is putting up the money, who is getting the money, who is making out like bandits?

But there is a lingering question: Why does anyone think it is a good idea for celebrities to open their own schools and to get public dollars for their profitable vanity project? How are we supposed to “outcompete” the globe by turning our children over to uneducated sports stars and rappers?

I never thought I would see the day when NPR ran a story complimenting a misogynist rapper for opening a charter school. This rapper, who calls himself Pitbull, writes lyrics that are too filthy to repeat on NPR or on this blog.

But there is Claudio Sanchez, reporting on the charming phenomenon that celebrities who are not educators and who apparently have no education themselves are opening charter schools! Isn’t that wonderful! Shouldn’t we all be impresssed!

Well, no, it is not that Mr. Pitbull has a heart overflowing with love of children or love of learning. He is making a lot of money. Fortunately for the readers of this blog, we have read Jersey Jazzman and Mother Crusader, both of whom did the sort of research that NPR did not do. Mr. Pitbull has another name: Armando Perez. In Jersey Jazzman’s article, you will see Mr. Pitbull-Perez has hired Academica, a for-profit charter chain with revenues of $158 million, to run his new charter school. Academica is owned by Mr. Fernando Zulueta, who controls some $115 million in real estate in Miami, all exempt from property taxes because his for-profit schools are “public.”

The story–and the money trail–gets way more complicated, but NPR did not see fit to discover any of the backers of Mr. Pitbull’s school.

The story gets entangled in Florida Republican politics, as Mother Crusader shows.

As always, it is a good thing to follow the money. Who is putting up the money, who is getting the money, who is making out like bandits?

But there is a lingering question: Why does anyone think it is a good idea for celebrities to open their own schools and to get public dollars for their profitable vanity project? How are we supposed to “outcompete” the globe by turning our children over to uneducated sports stars and rappers?

New Jersey has 180 private schools that receive public funding for students with disabilities.

They operate with little or no state oversight.

Governor Chris Christie and his State Commissioner Chris Cerf are big supporters of privatization.

They rant about the high salaries of public school superintendents, but say it is none of their business if the publicly-funded private schools have even higher salaries.

They don’t care about nepotism or self-dealing.

Hey, it’s the private sector.

Christopher Baxter of the Star-Ledger reports on a two-month investigation of private schools that spend public money in ways that would be illegal in public schools.

Baxter writes:

The payroll at Somerset Hills School reads like a family tree, with 10 relatives sprinkled throughout. Four of them earn six-figure salaries.

The cafeteria serves up a nice profit, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for food to a company founded and owned by the school’s executive director.

Even the land and buildings are worth big bucks. The school paid nearly half a million dollars for rent in 2012, mostly to a company owned by its former executive director.

Tucked away amid lush green meadows in Warren Township, Somerset Hills is one of about 180 private schools across the state where more than 10,000 severely disabled children go for an education when their public schools can’t handle them.

Though Somerset Hills is privately owned and run, it’s like a public school in one simple way: You pay for all of it.

And more:

In an era when public schools are under intense pressure to do more with less, the newspaper’s review showed nepotism, high executive salaries, generous pensions, fancy cars and questionable business deals are common in parts of this more than $600 million New Jersey industry.

Of course, Governor Christie would not tolerate such practices in the public schools.

But here are more findings:

• While Gov. Chris Christie rails about the pay of public school superintendents, top employees at these schools live in another world, spared from his rancor. Nineteen directors were paid the maximum allowed salary — $225,734 — to oversee schools with anywhere from 30 to 327 students a day. And 52 people at these schools took home more than $175,000, the most superintendents are allowed to earn in public schools with up to 10,000 students.

• About a third of the schools did business with companies owned or controlled by the same people who run the schools, or their relatives or associates, oftentimes at a higher cost than other schools pay. The deals ran the gamut from real estate to bus rentals to food.

• Nearly one-fifth of schools had instances of nepotism. One school had four related directors, three of whom earned the maximum $225,734. Another employed a part-time classroom aide related to the director who earned $94,000 in 2013, three times other aides’ salaries.

• Three dozen schools offered generous pension plans paid for by the public but requiring no contributions by employees, in stark contrast to public school teachers and administrators’ plans. At one school, a former official collected retiree health benefits after she served time for ripping off taxpayers.

• Twenty-two cars — including two BMWs, a Land Rover, three Lexus and two Mercedes — were charged in part to taxpayers despite being used for personal transportation by officials. School disclosure reports show many cars were kept at officials’ homes.

Consider that Governor Chris Christie want more privately managed charter schools, which will enjoy the same lax supervision as the private schools for children with disabilities.

Expect more outlandish executive salaries, akin to Eva Moskowitz’s $475,000 in New York City, where her schools enroll fewer than 5,000 students (she is an attorney, not an educator). Expect more nepotism, as is now common when charter schools (like those in Arizona) are unregulated. Expect more elaborate real estate deals, where the charter operator buys the real estate, then pays his corporation outlandish rent.

That’s the future, New Jersey. Governor Christie believes in it. So does Chris Cerf. They are pushing as hard as they can to privatize schools in every city in the state, which will operate with minimal oversight.

Crack investigative journalist David Sirota takes a close look at the gangster tactics that billionaires are using in New York City, D.C, and Denver.

This article will be “unlocked” on its website for only 9 hours more.

Please read it NOW.

Consider subscribing to NSFWCORP, which specializes in investigative reporting.

 

Hostage-Taking In The Classroom

By David Sirota

Dispatch unlocked: Subscriber Chris E-A unlocked this and it will remain available until 9 hours from now.

Become a NSFWCORP Subscriber today.

Subscribers can login for access to all NSFWCORP content.

For all the hype about America’s renewed obsession with zombies, the walking dead have lost their status as the favored metaphor du jour. A quarter century after the Iran standoff and seven months after “Argo” won the Oscar for best picture, the preferred metonym is now the hostage, in all his metaphorically hogtied and blindfolded glory.

Over on the East Coast, for instance, Washington politicians and news bureaus are colluding on “Government Shutdown” – an epic multi-day television miniseries of political pirates, ransom demands and overwrought hostage cliches. Over on the Left Coast, Hollywood is set to capitalize on the zeitgeist with its own scripted look at piracy and hostages called “Captain Phillips.”

Meanwhile, few have noticed that off camera, the ascendant hostage meme has quietly transformed from insipid political shorthand and fleeting pop culture fad into the day-to-day governing ideology of the ultimate symbol of Americana: the schoolhouse.

In this standoff, the hostages are public school children. They are being held captive not by a rag tag bunch of Somali buccaneers nor by Tea Party loons with that distinctly wild-eyed serial killer look in their eyes. No, a generation of youngsters is being held instead by pinstriped corporate executives, buttoned-down foundation officers and the local school board officials those aristocrats buy and sell.

Reminiscent of Hans Gruber’s high-class crew, this smooth-talking team of bandits is armed with billions of dollars of “charitable” – and therefore tax-subsidized – cash from both brand-name corporate behemoths and individual plutocrats like Microsoft’s Bill Gates, insurance magnate Eli Broad, media titan Michael Bloomberg, Enron billionaire John Arnold and Wal-Mart’s Walton family. With school districts refusing to adequately fund their education systems, and with a tax code boosting the plutocrats’ anti-public-school activism, this rogues gallery is now calling the shots – and demanding ransom. If a community pays the ransom by letting these distant marauders do what they want to the local school, then the perpetrators won’t purposely harm any hostages, even though their policies may inadvertently maim a bunch. But if a community defies these moguls’ wishes, then open threats against the cute little hostages commence.

The commercial application of this extortion scheme is straightforward. In shock-doctrine-like fashion, the corporate community that typically lobbies against higher taxes to fund schools makes a business opportunity out of schools’ subsequent budget crises. Specifically, corporations offer cash to budget-strapped school districts, claiming they are motivated by an altruistic desire to help preserve educational services for the community. But the cash is often contingent on letting those corporations use the public school to advertise products to those kids. If education officials later realize it is a bad idea to turn schools into corporate advertising weapons aimed at captive child audiences, then – poof! – the hostages are harmed as the corporate funding vanishes.

Less straightforward but equally insidious is the concurrent extortion scheme run by politically motivated foundations. More interested in making local schools petri dishes for their half-baked “free market” experiments and their ideological crusades against unions, these foundations masquerade as apolitical charities, while using their vast tax-subsidized resources to strengthen the already outsized political power of their namesake benefactors.

Three of the best examples come from Washington, D.C., New York City and my home city of Denver, Colorado.

Washington, D.C.: “It’s Not a Democracy”

Thanks to the boom in lobbying and government contracting, the nation’s capital is no longer a town of middle-class bureaucrats – it is now one of the wealthiest places on Earth, and one of the planet’s most unequal cities. With the Beltway’s rich typically sending their kids to private havens like Sidwell Friends, the D.C. public school system ends up serving a disproportionately low-income student population, which means it needs a lot of money if it has any chance of succeeding. That’s because economic status is such an enormous factor in educational achievement and because successfully combating poverty’s deleterious effect on educational achievement requires extra resources for “wraparound” services. To help raise that capital, private foundations in recent years swooped in with resources.

It sounded great – suddenly, there seemed to be no need to raise taxes on the cash-bloated multinational corporations stationed in D.C. The celebrated philanthrocapitalists were in the nation’s capital to save the day! Except for one problem: the foundation money came with an implicit and then-unprecedented threat. Championing the punitive, unproven and often counterproductive pedagogical agenda of standardized testing, draconian school shutdowns, mass teacher firings and union-busting charter schools, the conservative foundations gave Washington, D.C. residents the hostage-taker’s ultimatum: if they and their democratically elected city councilors did not obediently submit to the corporate “reform” agenda of then-Chancellor Michelle Rhee, then there would be consequences. More specifically, if they ever removed Rhee from her public office, then the foundation money would be summarily withdrawn, and kids would be harmed.

Backed by these corporate heavies, Rhee told residents who were critical of her destructive and cheating-plagued term that when it comes to public education policy in her city, “It’s not a democracy.” The result of the hostage taking thuggery? As PBS Frontline reported, after Rhee’s tenure, Washington is “still among the worst in the nation and D.C.’s high school graduation rate dead last.” And yet while the hostages suffered, Rhee has been handsomely rewarded for her loyalty to the hostage takers, as the same plutocrats bequeathed her a high-paying job and a well-financed corporate front group all for herself.

New York: King Bloomberg’s Permanent Reign

In New York, a different but equally harsh hostage situation has been engineered in order to guarantee the permanent dominance of outgoing billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s agenda, even after Hizzoner leaves office. The billionaire media titan and his cronies want to cement his polarizing agenda of demonizing teachers and promoting union-busting charter schools, even though those schools often deliver worse results than traditional schools. As the Wall Street Journal reports (emphasis added):

The fundraising arm of the New York City public-school system brought in a record $47 million in pledges in the past year, a sign that donors want to extend the effects of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s policies past the end of his third term…

While the fund has paid for some traditional projects—such as grants for libraries and after-school programs—it has also quietly bankrolled potentially controversial pilots of new curriculum standards, teacher evaluations and the School of One, an experimental method of using technology to teach math.

Using private money instead of tax dollars enabled the mayor and chancellor, who were wrangling with the United Federation of Teachers in court and on the airwaves, to sidestep controversy while experimenting with new methods. But some critics say this process still cuts out public participation…

“It adds yet another layer of distance between open public decision-making processes and how policies are set in the district,” said Sarah Reckhow, an assistant professor in urban politics and education at Michigan State University.

“Experimenting with new methods” is Wall Street Journal-ese for anti-union aristocrats like Bloomberg using children as pawns in an ideological scheme to turn more of the public school system into union-free – and failing – charter schools.

If that wasn’t bad enough, get this: though the Journal notes that the Bloomberg-aligned fund finances programs in public schools, “is located inside Education Department headquarters, and the schools chancellor is its chairman,” its executives nonetheless refuse to release basic information about who is donating and what it is actually funding. In other words, inside a public school system already plagued by corporate cronyism and a grotesque revolving door culture, there exists a secret privately financed slush fund that is permitted to operate without any public scrutiny at all.

Slush fund officials defend this as an earnest commitment “to safeguarding donors’ privacy” – but such saccharine platitudes obscure bareknuckled political motivations. Basically, Bloomberg and his rich buddies don’t like the idea of local communities – especially in liberal pro-union New York City – having control over the city’s schools. Thus, they’ve make a two-fer opportunity out of the city’s inadequately funded public school system. Knowing city schools are already being held hostage by meager budgets, they make huge “charitable” donations to the public education system, but make the money contingent on a two-pronged ransom demand: 1) they insist their ideological agenda be followed regardless of whether it actually improves educational results and 2) they insist their specific funding priorities being implemented by the public school system but without any democratic input from the public that is supposed to be controlling that system.

Acquiesce and the hostages are helped. Ask questions and the child hostages are made to suffer.

Denver: Explicit Threats to Harm Kids

Before you can understand the education hostage-taking in the Mile High City, you have to understand that the Denver Public School system is enmeshed in a thick web of corruption. In fact, even calling it a web is wrong. The school system here (as I first learned when my wife ran for school board a few years ago) is more accurately described as being covered in a rancid blob of radical ideology and corporate “reform” propaganda – one that has delivered tragic academic results. This blob is so massive it is hard to know where the private sector stops and the public sector begins.

One way to see this blob is to just behold the absurd amounts of corporate and right-wing money that have been spent to buy the city’s recent school board elections. Though school board positions are unpaid, the typical Denver school elections now feature CEOs throwing $25,000 checks at candidates who pledge to suck ever-more public money out of public schools and plow it into the privately run charter school industry – the same industry that has an illustrious history of discriminating against children with special needs.

Another way to see this blob is to look at the school board’s breathtaking self-dealing and its rampant conflicts of interest. For example, its current president is paid by a private foundation whose stated goal is to put more public money into privately run charter schools. The board’s immediate past president resigned to go work for a private education foundation that does business with the school district. Another of its board members runs a foundation that gets money from the school district. A previous board member went from the board to run a group looking to bring more corporate influence into the school system. And now another leading candidate for a board vacancy, the pro-voucher former lieutenant governor Barbara O’Brien, says that even if she wins the board seat, she will ignore concerns about self-dealing and remain the paid executive director of a pro-charter foundation to which the school board gives public money.

Considering this hideous record, it is hardly shocking that this same school board a few years ago agreed to a Wall Street financing scheme so corrupt it landed on the front page of the New York Times. Orchestrated by then-superintendent Michael Bennet after a stint as a corporate raider for right-wing billionaire Phil Anschutz, the scheme enriched the financial industry that later bankrolled Bennet’s U.S. Senate campaign. It also blew a $177 million hole in the school system’s budget at a time when that system was already being crushed by the state’s pathetic education funding levels. That’s when – on cue – the plutocratic ideologues waltzed in to Denver, publicly portraying themselves as benevolent saviors, but privately brandishing political axes.

As the Denver Post reports, since just 2009, “DPS has received $77 million in gifts and grants from private foundations, corporations and individuals” – much of it with ideological strings attached. Bill Gates’ foundation, for example, gave the public schools $10 million. The cash was given in exchange for the school board’s guarantee that the schools would build a punitive teacher “evaluation” system that conservatives hope will help blame teachers for the school system’s systemic problems and then create the rationale to bust the teachers’ union.

Likewise, the Walton Foundation gave $8 million to help the city’s public schools with budget shortfalls, in exchange for the board reclassifying more traditional public schools as “innovation” schools. To the notoriously anti-union Walton family, that was a great political victory, as the “innovation” classification allows the board to tear up a school’s union contract and make teacher’s at-will employees.

Not surprisingly, many people in the city are today sufficiently pissed off about what’s been going on. So with another board election coming up in just a few weeks, the public threats to harm the hostages have begun.

These aren’t just any old threats couched in sententious language, mind you. As a recent piece in the alt-weekly Westword showed, these are egregiously explicit and menacing promises to harm children. In that article, investment banking aristocrat Bruce Hoyt – shocker! a former Denver school board member – issued this stunningly brazen threat to voters:

Hoyt also points out that the district has received millions of dollars in grant money from national foundations over the past several years “because people have such confidence in our reforms.” If the district switches directions, “I could see a lot of that money drying up and causing budgetary problems for DPS,” he says.

The message from this politically connected financial industry snake is clear: if Denver voters dare even think about challenging the destructive privatization agenda in their own school system, corporate foundations will exact even more painful revenge against the city’s children.


There are, of course, plenty of other examples of this hostage-taking extortion. In New Jersey, for example, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg gave Newark Mayor Cory Booker a secret education slush fund. Booker somehow found time away from leveraging his office for personal cash to then use the money to neuter the local school board and weaken the teacher’s union. At the same time, down the road in Trenton, following foundations’ efforts to strongarm voters into keeping particular politicians in public office, insurance kingpin Eli Broad’s foundation threatened to cut off its education funding for the state’s kids if voters dare vote anti-union Gov. Chris Christie out of office.

Across the country in Los Angeles, the hostage taking tactics are even more invasive, as they operate at both the political level and at the school personnel level. As Dissent magazine’s Joanne Barkan recounts in her recent must-read article:

Private foundations have used another tactic to exert influence on the Los Angeles Unified School District: they paid the salaries of more than a dozen senior staffers. According to the Los Angeles Times, the privately financed “public” employees worked on such ed-reform projects as new systems to evaluate teachers and collect immense amounts of data on students. Much of the money came from the Wasserman Foundation ($4.4 million) and the Walton Family Foundation ($1.2 million); Ford and Hewlett made smaller grants. The Broad Foundation covered the $160,000 salary of Matt Hill to run the district’s Public School Choice program, which turned so-called low-performing and new schools over to private operators. Hill had worked in Black & Decker’s business development group before he went through one of the Broad Foundation’s uncertified programs to train new education administrators.

A Times editorial on January 12, 2010 asked, sensibly, “At what point do financial gifts begin reshaping public decision-making to fit a private agenda?…Even the best-intentioned gifts have a way of shifting behavior. Educators and the public, not individual philanthropists, should set the agenda for schools.”

Once again, the threat is clear: if the community tries to do something other than the foundations want, the foundations will exact financial revenge on kids by pulling funding from the cash-starved school district.

Barkan notes that in all these hostage situations, there is a symbiotic self-reinforcing relationship between corporatists’ anti-tax crusades and their desire to dominate public education policymaking. The less tax revenues that are generated, the less public revenues schools have and the more private foundations can use their money to enact their anti-union, pro-privatization agenda.

“The mega-foundations use their grants as leverage: they give money to grantees who agree to adopt the foundations’ pet policies,” she writes. “Resource-starved states and school districts feel compelled to say yes to millions of dollars even when many strings are attached or they consider the policies unwise. They are often in desperate straits.”

Over time, as this threat-retribution-acquiescence cycle is institutionalized and as corporate campaign contributions cleanse school boards of pro-public-education voices, a kind of Stockholm Syndrome develops in which substantive questions about failed “reform” policies are no longer even asked. Ultimately, the public is removed from its own public education system and faraway moguls turn education policy into their ideological plaything, consequences be damned. Worst of all, the hostages are left to suffer – and have no hope of ever being released.

Subscribers have unrestricted access to all NSFWCORP content, always

Top of Form

Get access to everything we publish, including the full archive, online and in print for just $7 per month. You can cancel at any time, with just a single click.

Payment details Name as it appears on your card  Credit card number

Security code (CVC)

Expiration date /

Shipping address

Street address  Street address 2

City

State/Province/Region

Postal Code

Country

We ship anywhere in the world, free.

Create your account Email  Password (to manage your subscription)    Get our free weekly email newsletter

Bottom of Form

This Dispatch will remain unlocked until 9 hours from now.

 

Eleanor Chute, who covers education in Pittsburgh, wrote an excellent review of “Reign of Error” in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

With the rise and dominance of the Internet, there are ever fewer cities and towns with newspapers, and book review sections have almost died out. Even the New York Times book review seems to have half as many pages as it did a decade ago. So given the limited amount of space for books to be reviewed, it is especially good news to see a review by an experienced education writer in a newspaper.

She–or the headline writer–called the book “in-you-face.” If that means honest, candid, no holds barred, that’s right.

The blogger Louisiana Educator describes a meeting in Baton Rouge where leaders of the corporate reform movement worried about the progress of their plans to privatize education in the state. Time is running out.

This is a chilling post.

I hope that its author, experienced educator Mike Deshotels, won’t mind if I excerpt this long introduction. You should read it all.

A small private meeting was held in Baton Rouge a couple of weeks ago including representatives of several highly influential power brokers who are dedicated to a major overhaul and privatization of our K-12 education system. These groups were very concerned that much of the Jindal reform legislation has either been declared unconstitutional by the courts or is still tied up in litigation. They are frustrated that the supporters of our public education system are fighting back against their sweeping “reforms”. They figure that they have only the rest of the Jindal administration in which to push through revisions of the law that will keep their reforms intact.

They are concerned that only a relatively small number of teachers are on a pathway to being fired as a result of the sloppy implementation of the new VAM evaluation by Superintendent John White. They believe also that the new laws should be identifying many principals and even local superintendents who should be fired. The firings are not happening quickly enough!

They are concerned that the privatization of our K-12 educational system is not happening fast enough. They are frustrated that many of the new voucher schools have turned out to be run by small time swindlers who knew almost nothing about education and who had no business running schools. They feel their cause has received bad publicity when it was revealed that some voucher schools were teaching about dinosaurs and humans existing at the same time.

This is a mighty hoax being perpetrated on the people of the state. Let them know. Stop the privatization movement now.

A friend in a conservative think tank said it was time for me to write a post praising John Arnold for giving $10 million to keep Headstart alive during the federal government shutdown.

Arnold was an Enron trader who left with $3 billion before the Enron scam collapsed, destroying the pensions of everyone who worked there. Other Enron executives went to jail, but Arnold got out before the collapse and is now using his fortune to advance privatization of public schools and to attack pensions of public sector employees nationally.

At first, I thought, what a nice gesture on the part of a man who fleeced so many Enron investors. I am glad he is using a tiny part of his vast fortune to do some good.

Then I read this article by David Sirota. Sirota, who has become one of the nation’s finest investigative journalists, said that Arnold was buying good PR and diverting public attention from his efforts to impoverish millions of retirees by slashing their pensions. Oh, well, at least their grandchildren will be able to go to a Headstart center.

My friend on the right said I was becoming too cynical. But I don’t think that is quite right.

How should one feel about a man who walks away with $3 billion from a corporation that looted its stockholders, whose major executives went to jail, whose employees lost their life savings? How should one feel about his efforts to cut the pensions of people who have retired on $40,000 a year?

My view: outrage is a human and appropriate response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In case you missed the last week of the long-running drama and comedy series, called “Corporate America Wants to Love Public Education to Death,” EduShyster fills you in. 

You will laugh and cry as you watch leaders of the movement tear their hair out as they argue about whether the mighty scam perpetrated by the virtual charter schools are truly “reform” or are they, well, scams.

You will snicker as you see the break-up of true lovers in the parent tricker biz in California.

You will laugh as you review the efforts of the “P” (privatization) movement say they never ever heard of the word, and all they are saying is give P a chance.

This is one of her best. She just gets better and better all the time.

How does she do it?

Last spring, the founders of a high-scoring charter school in California were convicted of misappropriating over $200,000 in public monies. According to the charges filed, the couple spent, for example, “more than $34,000 on meals, entertainment and gifts that they classified as business expenses or gestures of appreciation for teachers.” Also, “Some charges centered on the lease for the main campus on De Soto Avenue in Woodland Hills. In 2004, the couple negotiated a 10-year lease for $18,390 a month. But three years later, they began charging the school $43,870 a month for a sublease. At the same time, Selivanov and Berkovich took on responsibility for a $520,000 bank loan to the school.”

The couple was sentenced this week. The husband will spend nearly five years in state prison, while his wife will be incarcerated for 45 days in the county jail plus probation and community service.

The California Charter Schools Association entered an amicus brief on their behalf maintaining that the couple are not guilty of any criminal offense because charter schools are not subject to the laws governing public schools. CCSA says that charter schools are exempt from criminal laws governing public schools because they are operated by a private corporation.

They say the money received for their nonprofit corporation is not public money, even though it comes from the state and from taxpayers.

CCSA maintains: “Moreover, the prosecution completely ignores the fact that the Legislature has expressly allowed charter schools to be operated by private nonprofit corporations, and that many, if not all, of the complained of actions of the defendants are lawful actions of employees and officers of nonprofit corporations (e.g., ordinary and necessary expenditures on meals, gift cards, flowers, leases with employees and officers of the nonprofit etc.) And, most importantly, the court cases and administrative agency decisions make clear that these private officers and employees of the nonprofit corporation are not subject to Penal Code section 424 – because these nonprofit corporations are private entities, with private employees, expending private moneys (i.e., not “public moneys”).”

This criminal prosecution, says CCSA, has sent “shock waves throughout the charter school community,” which heretofore thought that the laws applied to public schools did not apply to them.

In a case in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, an Arizona charter successfully argued that it was a private corporation, not a public school. In Chicago, the teachers at a charter school wanted to form a union, but the charter founder argued before the National Labor Relations Board that the charter was operated by a private corporation and not subject to state labor laws.

Anthony Cody reviewed this case and concluded that we should accept the claims of the California Charter Schools Association that charter schools are private entities, managed by private corporations that are outside the purview of the law.

Is this really a good development for American public education? One set of schools (charter schools) receiving public funds but exempt from the law, and another set of schools (public schools) closely regulated by the state? One set of schools (charter schools) free to set their own discipline policy, free to enroll few students with disabilities and English learners, while another set of schools (public schools) must accept everyone, including the students excluded or tossed out of the charter schools.

Does it make sense to give public money to schools that are neither transparent nor accountable for their use of that money and unwilling to comply with state laws?