Archives for category: Privatization

Some critics of my book “Reign of Error” say that “reformers” are not privatizers. Who, me, they say, in all innocence?

I invite them to read this post by veteran reporter Bobby Tanzilo in Milwaukee. Here is a city with a thriving voucher program, a thriving charter sector, and a shrinking public school system (that contains disproportionate numbers of students with disabilities and English learners who are unwanted by the other two sectors).

All of this competition among the three sectors was to produce dramatic improvement, but it didn’t. Milwaukee has had school choice for 23 years. Today, it is one of the lowest performing urban districts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

But the business leaders of Milwaukee, Tanzilo writes, want more choice. They want more privatization. They want the entire city school district turned into a “Recovery School District,” to emulate those in New Orleans and Memphis.

Tanzilo writes:

The Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce – which has in the past supported stripping the elected school board of its power and drawing away funding from Milwaukee Public Schools to pay for private and religious school vouchers – sponsored a pair of PowerPoint presentations on education that were shown to its members in August.

These slideshows touted the so-called “recovery districts” in New Orleans and Memphis and suggest to me – and others I’ve spoken to – that rumors that the group is pushing the recovery district idea for Milwaukee are true.

Recovery districts are public school systems that have had their autonomy and local control usurped by state capitols at the urging of corporate school reformers whose goal is to privatize public schools. The districts are then turned over to private, outside entities that are accountable to no one … or at least not us citizens and parents.

In short, they want to eliminate public education in Milwaukee altogether. They should do their homework. Even the Cowen Institute at Tulane–which supports charter schools–acknowledges that 2/3 of the charters in New Orleans are low-performing schools. And the so-called Achievement District in Memphis is too new to have any meaningful results.

The bottom line is that the business and civic leaders in Milwaukee think that the best way to improve the schools is to abolish public education and privatize control of all the schools. They have not a scintilla of evidence for doing so. The charter sector and the voucher sector in Milwaukee do not outperform the struggling public sector.

What is it that appeals to Milwaukee’s leaders? The absence of any democratic role in public education?

 

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan blasted critics of Race to the Top and his “reforms” as “armchair pundits.”

Anthony Cody writes about his remarks here and reproduces part of his remarks (not the part where he boasts of his many “accomplishments” as Secretary of Education). I expect he made no reference to the high levels of demoralization among teachers and principals documented by the annual MetLife survey. But, hey, disruption is part of the plan, right? Pushing out the veterans is not counted a bad thing in Arne’s play book. He likes the nimble kids who stay two years, then leave.

Does Duncan think that teachers and principals are armchair pundits?

Does he think that researchers who have demonstrated the futility of value-added assessments like Linda Darling-Hammond (candidate Obama’s education advisor in 2008) are armchair pundits?

Does he think that researchers like David Berliner, who has studied the effects of poverty on academic achievement for decades, is an armchair pundit?

I guess he means me. I have studied the history and politics of American education for more than forty years. It is true that I believe what Duncan calls “reform” is a disaster that is demoralizing teachers and principals, harming communities, and doing incalculable damage to American education. I explain why I believe this in my new book, “Reign of Error.” I document everything I write.

I would like Secretary Duncan to explain why he thinks that more testing and more standardization and more charter schools is better than placing his bets on the research-based recommendations in my book.

I would like him to explain why the Obama administration’s education policies are so closely aligned–nearly identical–to the failed NCLB policies.

Looking for common ground.

Rod Ellcessor of the Indiana Education Association raises a question: what kind of “new Democrat” wants to eliminate unions and public schools? He writes:

“Diane, unfortunately, we are besieged by the Mind Trust in Indianapolis. Bill Gates’ money is one of the primary sources for the Mind Trust which allows TFA to be placed in the Schools in Indy. As the Director of the Indianapolis Education Association, we are fighting the war with the right wing agenda and the super majorities in our Legislature. As well, our Tea Party Governor is no better. The goal of the Mind Trust is to collapse our Indianapolis Public Schools. The Director of the Mind Trust is David Harris who headed the Charter Schools for the former Indy Mayor Bart Peterson, a “New Democrat.” We have had horrible results with the TFA teachers. In fact, IPS administration came to us not knowing what to do due to their dismal results and discipline. The TFA’s barely last two years and DO NOT join the Union. Indiana has to be ground zero with all of the Charter schools and unrestricted vouchers. As well, we have had our collective bargaining rights diminished to a point that we just meet and confer. Clearly, if we do not follow the advice of Robert Reich and get involved there will be nothing left of Public Education. Thank you for your national leadership and the latest book, “Reign of Error.” I am recommending it to everyone I know and make contact with.”

Julian Vasquez Heilig is the most creative blogger I know in terms of his brilliant combination of flashy graphics, research, and informed commentary.

Here he describes the century-long battle between the managerial elites—who believe that schools can be improved by data, management, mandates and standardization, always controlled by them–and the pedagogical crowd–who have fought the managers that the starting point in education is the students, how they learn, what they need, not the management.

It is Taylor vs. Dewey.

The Taylorites run the show for now. They ARE the status quo.

The day of reckoning is coming.

They are losing because everything they have done has failed.

No surprise: Sacramento gets new charter schools staffed by inexperienced Teach for America recruits, non-union, of course.

Michelle Rhee’s husband is mayor of Sacramento.

How many would choose a doctor or lawyer with five weeks of training? Raise your hand.

Lots of money from the anti-union Walton Family Foundation, as well as Gates and Broad.

Maybe the foundations think that it’s good enough for poor kids, not for their own.

Bruce Baker of Rutgers University here dissects the fundamental flaws at the heart of the corporate reform agenda.

This is the set of policy prescriptions that he reviews:

What I have found most intriguing over time is that the central messaging of these reformy template policy prescriptions is that they will necessarily improve accountability and transparency of education systems, and that they will do so largely by improving the responsiveness of those intractable systems through altered governance and finance, including but not limited to “market” based choice mechanisms.

The standard list of strategies that are supposedly designed to increase accountability and transparency of our education system include, among other things:

  1. Expansion of charter schools, coupled with multiple charter authorizers (including private entities) and minimized charter regulation
  2. Adoption of tuition tax credit programs providing individuals and corporations the option to forgo paying a portion of taxes by contributing that amount to a privately governed entity (or entities) that manages tuition scholarships to privately governed/managed schools.
  3. Parent trigger policies that permit a simple majority of parents of children currently attending any school within a district to mandate that the local board of education displace the entire staff of the school and potentially turn over governance and management of school’s operations (and physical/capital assets?) to a private management company to be operated as a charter school.

It is argued that current large bureaucratic public education systems are simply intractable, non-responsive and can’t be improved – That they are simply not accountable to anyone because they are run by corrupt self-interested public officials elected by less than 2% of eligible voters (turnout for board elections) and that they have no incentive to be responsive because they are guaranteed a constantly growing pot of revenue regardless of performance/quality/responsiveness.

Whatever problems do exist with the design of our public bureaucracies, I would argue that we should exercise extreme caution in accepting uncritically the belief that we could not possibly do worse, and that large scale privatization and contracting of private entities to provide the public good is necessarily a better and more responsive, more efficient, transparent and accountable option.

Read the entire post. He shows, step by step, why each of these claims are misleading; and why they do not lead to greater accountability or transparency, or even to better outcomes for students.

In his analysis of “parent trigger,” he writes:

Parent trigger is quite possibly the most ludicrous corruption of public governance and accountability on the education reformy education policy table. Put simply, parent trigger is the most ill-conceived subversion of governance I’ve seen out there in the reformy playbook.

And he explains why.

It is an important read.

 

Media Advisory: September 19, 2013
Contact: Richard Allen Smith / rasmith@inthepublicinterest.org / (202) 327-8435
** MEDIA ADVISORY **

New Report: Shocking 65 PERCENT of For-Profit Prison Contracts Include “Lockup Quotas” and “Low-Crime Taxes” to Guarantee Profits

In the Public Interest report will expose contract language guaranteeing 80-100 percent prison occupancy and forcing taxpayers to pay a penalty for empty beds.

(Washington, DC) – On Thursday, Sept. 19 at 1 p.m. EDT, In the Public Interest (ITPI) will host a tele-briefing to unveil a new report titled “Criminal: How Lockup Quotas and Low-Crime Taxes Guarantee Profits for Private Prison Corporations.” The study will document the shocking prevalence of contract language between private prison companies and state and local governments that either guarantee prison occupancy rates (“lockup quotas”) or force taxpayers to pay for empty beds if the prison population falls due to lower crime rates or other factors (“low-crime taxes”).

Major findings of the ITPI study include:

Of the 62 private prison contracts ITPI received and analyzed, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) include occupancy guarantees and force taxpayers to pay for empty prison beds if the lockup quota is not met.
Lockup quotas in private prison contracts range between 80 and 100 percent; 90 percent is the most frequent occupancy guarantee requirement.
Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Virginia have the highest occupancy guarantee requirements, with quotas requiring between 95 and 100 percent occupancy.
WHAT: Tele-briefing to unveil “Criminal: How Lockup Quotas and ‘Low-Crime Taxes’ Guarantee Profits for Private Prison Corporations”

WHO: Shar Habibi, Research and Policy Director, In the Public Interest

Justin Jones, Former Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections

Alex Friedman, Managing Editor of Prison Legal News, a project of the Human Rights Defense Center

Reverend Michael McBride, Director, Urban Strategies and Lifelines to Healing, PICO National Network

WHEN: Thursday, Sept. 19, 2013 – 1 p.m. EDT
DIAL: 866-952-1907
Conference ID is “PRISONS”

###

In the Public Interest is a comprehensive resource center on outsourcing and responsible contracting. It is committed to equipping citizens, public officials, advocacy groups, and researchers with the information, ideas, and other resources they need to ensure that public contracts with private entities are transparent, fair, well-managed, and effectively monitored, and that those contracts meet the long-term needs of communities.

In the Public Interest, 1825 K St. NW, Suite 210, Washington, DC 20006

I posted before that four TFA alums are running for the Atlanta school board. This seems to be the TFA long-term plan, as Wendy Kopp has often stated: to build a cadre of leaders with a strong network of funders across the nation.

We know what this has meant in Louisiana, the District of Columbia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, where TFA-trained leaders have fought for privatization, high-stakes testing, test-based teacher evaluation, and merit pay.

Here is an Atlanta article about what lies ahead if TFA alums constitute a solid bloc on the board and are close to controlling it. It is interesting that some of the candidates do not acknowledge their TFA connection.

The article describes a little-known offshoot of TFA called “Leadership for Educational Equity” (LEE). This appears to be the political action arm of TFA, spinning off groups like “Families Empowered” and “Mississippi First,” both of which advocate for privately managed charter schools. LEE is not transparent. Only members can access its website.

You can see why the far-right, anti-union Walton Family Foundation gave TFA $50 million, and why it is the favorite charity of major corporations. It is a training ground for the privatization movement.

Especially interesting in this article is the analysis by Julian Vasquez Heilig, who has studied the effects of TFA in the classroom.

The following is a quote from the article:

*************

“Overall, the four are a largely pro-charter school group. If all four are elected, TFA alumni will constitute a near-majority voting bloc on the BOE.

So, what does this mean for APS, and how might a TFA voting bloc impact educational policy for APS teachers, parents, students, and other stakeholders?

“The first thing is, it’s not surprising you have so many TFA alum running for the School Board.
TFA alums are everywhere but the classroom. Their turnover rate, after three or four years, is around eighty percent,” Julian Vasquez Heilig, an Associate Professor of Educational Policy and Planning at the University of Texas at Austin, and author of the Cloaking Inequality blog, told Atlanta Progressive News.

“It’s a revolving door of temporary labor. It [TFA] perpetuates inequality in teacher quality,” he said.

“It empowers districts to continue a revolving of rookie teachers. What TFA will argue is their five weeks of training in the summer is adequate for their teachers,” he said.

“In recent years, they’ve aligned themselves with the corporate reformer movement. That means vouchers, charter schools, parent trigger, anti-union,” he said.

“You see the Teach for America alum leading out in this movement to corporatize education. What that means, take education out of the public space. They [charter schools] are no longer democratically controlled,” he said.

“What TFA has done over the last few years, is aligned themselves with a variety of faces in the reform movement that are taking democratic control away from communities, and they seek to privatize many functions,” he said.

“The voters have to decide if they like what TFA is selling. If the public is happy with the temporary tourist approach to education, then they’re the right choice,” he said.

****************

This letter was posted as a comment: “I just sent the
following post to the White House: Dear David Simas, I have
supported President Obama and the Democratic Party for some time.
However, I’m totally fed up and dismayed by Arne Duncan and the US
Department of Education’s assault on Public Education in America.
There are a lot of subjects I don’t have much in-depth knowledge
about. However, I have been a science teacher for the past 27 years
and I believe that I do know a little about educating children. I
want to tell you that the Race To The Top and it’s predecessor, No
Child Left Behind along with the excessive emphasis on Standardized
Testing are KILLING PUBLIC EDUCATION. “There are a lot of
experienced, knowledgeable, and well educated, respected educators
who are screaming at you to please stop this nutty policy which
includes Pay for Performance and the Common Core Curriculum. It is
certainly true that public education in America can be improved,
but not with the solutions that are now being implemented (without
documentation that they will actually work). “These thoughtless
policies are destroying communities, families, children and
teacher’s lives–all in the name of “improving education”. I now
believe that RTTT, NCLB, and the associated standardized testing
that now drives instruction throughout the country is doing greater
harm to our nation that George Bush’s War in Iraq. In its simplest
terms, children cannot be effectively educated by a top down,
force-fed curriculum. They hate it, get bored, and don’t see the
relevance of this test driven education to their lives. “Teachers
are not given the freedom to teach to the kids where they are and
build on their knowledge base. Curriculum content is dictated from
on high. This is the same concept that Joseph Stalin had in Russia
with his 5-year central economic plans. Didn’t work then, won’t
work now. “Educating children is a complex undertaking. It requires
two way, personal interaction between a teacher and student. If
class sizes are too large, that just can’t happen. If a teacher
cannot get his/her students interested and excited about learning,
educating the child is not going to be effective. There are 4 basic
ingredients to a good education: 1) Well trained and dedicated
teachers, 2) small class sizes, 3) adequate resources and a decent
environment to teach in, and 4) giving the teachers freedom to
teach. “Some will argue that this will just cost too much money and
that there are cheaper ways to educate kids. But it just ain’t so.
“Education is not about the money, it’s about the kids. It’s not
about international competition on standardized tests. Those tests
actually measure the wrong things anyway and cost waaaay too much
money. Public education is perhaps the most important bedrock
pillar that makes our nation great. Policies now being put in
place, including RTTT and Common Core Curriculum are destroying it.
Our children and our nation deserve better from you. I will no
longer support this President or the Democratic Party if they
continue on this self destructive path. “Al Tate
altate1122@gmail.com”

Yesterday, the New York Times published an article about my forthcoming book that turned out to be a profile of me. The reporter, Motoko Rich, did a good job of describing me, my dog Mitzi, and the basic facts of my unusual philosophical and political journey over the past few decades.

The headline was wrong, however, and I know that reporters don’t write headlines. Whoever wrote it is out of touch. The headline said: “Loud Voice Fighting Tide of New Trend in Education.” I would have preferred an adjective other than “loud,” like “strong” or “persistent.” My megaphone is actually rather small, consisting of nothing more than my pen (actually, my computer). I don’t know how “loud” my computer is.

I also found objectionable the suggestion that I was fighting a “new trend.” In fact, I am fighting the status quo. When a policy is shared by the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Congress, most governors and state legislatures, ALEC, Jeb Bush, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the President of the United States, how can it be called “new”?

I wish the article had said that the book refutes every claim of the privatization movement; that it provides ample documentation to show that American education is not failing or declining; that it demonstrates that test scores for American students are at an all-time high; that high-school graduation rates are at an all-time high; that dropout rates are at a historic low; and that privatization of public education is bad for our democracy.

It turns out I was not the only one who harbored these concerns. Read The Daily Howler on this topic.