Archives for category: Privatization

David Sirota, Denver journalist and talk show host, has
been trying to figure out the push for privatization. He thinks he
has it: profits. He recounts the tawdry Tony Bennett scandal, in
which he rigged school grades to protect a political donor, then
moved on to Florida, where his wife was hired by a for-profit
charter corporation that Bennett favored in Indiana. And he recites
a few more chapters and verses in the privatization story. He
concludes: You could consider that the most prolific
fundraiser in the education “reform” movement is not someone with a
stellar record of education policy success, but instead Michelle
Rhee, the former Washington, D.C., schools chief whose tenure was
defined by a massive cheating scandal.
But
maybe the best way to see that profit is the motive of the
education “reform” movement is to note that no matter how many kids
they harm or how many scandals they create, Bennett, Bush, Rhee and
other privatizers continue getting jobs, continue being touted as
education “experts” and continue raising huge money for their
cause.
Thanks to that dynamic, education
politics is spotlighting a fact that should be taught in every
civics class. It is a fact that contradicts the pervasive rhetoric
about meritocracy, but it is, alas, a fact: If you are backed by
enough money, you will almost always retain your status in America
— no matter how wrong you are and how many lives you
ruin.
   

CIVIL RIGHTS HERO CALLS FOR EMERGENCY

NATIONAL DIALOGUE ON THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION

 

Just Awarded Harvard’s Highest Education Honor, James Meredith Challenges Parents and Teachers to Demand Answers to 21 Questions and Take Back Control of Public Schools

 

Upcoming 50Th Anniversary Tie-In: August 18, 2013

 

On the 50th anniversary of his historic graduation from the University of Mississippi on August 18, 1963, civil rights hero James Meredith says “America’s public schools are being hijacked and destroyed by greed, fraud and lies,” and is calling for an emergency National Dialogue on the Future of American Education.

Meredith is challenging parents, teachers and community leaders and elders to take back control of America’s public schools and to demand answers and evidence from politicians and education officials on 21 questions on the future of American public education. “If politicians and bureaucrats refuse to fully answer these critical questions about our children’s future,” he adds, “then we should withhold our votes and support from them until they do.”

Meredith, the 2013 winner of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education’s Medal for Educational Impact, the school’s highest honor, says “the lives of our children and the future of our nation is at stake.”

“The civil rights issue of our time is to stop unproven co-called education reforms from totally destroying our children’s public education,” says Meredith, “and to get parents, teachers, community leaders and elders, the whole ‘Family of God,’ to take back control of our children’s education from politicians, bureaucrats and for-profits, who have turned our public schools into pawns in a game of money and power.”

He adds, “It is time we as citizens arm ourselves with the best evidence and information and take back control of our schools.”

Meredith urges Americans to join a national discussion on public K-8 education on his website: https://www.facebook.com/jamesmeredithusa

Meredith recently published his critically-hailed memoir, A MISSION FROM GOD: A MEMOIR AND CHALLENGE FOR AMERICA (Simon & Schuster), co-written with award-winning, New York Times bestselling author William Doyle.

 

Blogger Edward Berger has a test for those who claim to be reformers.

What do you know about teaching? How long did you teach? What gives you the authority to tell teachers how to teach? And that’s just the beginning.

He concludes that most reformers are quacks.

Anthony Cody has written another brilliant column, this one explaining the lessons of New York’s disastrous Common Core testing, in which 70 percent of the state’s children allegedly “failed.” I say allegedly because this was failure that was designed and manufactured by State Commissioner John King. King predicted what the scores would be before the students took the tests. How did he know? He decided what the passing mark would be.

In his column, Cody draws certain lessons from the New York debacle:

The biggest mind blower is that this whole project has been sold with the idea that its proponents are pushing “college for all.” Orwell taught us that in the future, those in power will use “doublespeak” to disguise their intentions. This feels like a classic case of double speak. We have been told a string of falsehoods, leading to a huge lie.

Falsehood number one:
Our future economy needs many more college graduates. There is very little evidence to support this and lots to the contrary.


Falsehood number two:
Common Core Standards were developed by educators. Demonstrably false. See this post of mine from 2009 describing the process then under way to write the standards.

Falsehood number three: The Common Core tests somehow predict who will succeed in college. See Carol Burris’ analysis of how these tests were written.

Falsehood number four:
This high stakes testing machine will somehow decrease inequity and create more opportunities for poor and minority students. In fact the achievement gap on these tests is proving to be even wider, reflecting the powerful influence underlying social conditions have on student performance.

As wealth has become ever more concentrated, and social mobility has declined, it is ever more important to create a social rationale for that inequality. People who are disenfranchised and deprived of meaningful opportunities must somehow be convinced that their second-class status is THEIR FAULT. It is because they have not applied themselves in school, not learned to be “critical thinkers,” that they are stuck in minimum wage jobs. Inequities must be rationalized. The sorting will occur. It must be explained so that it is accepted and not rebelled against.

Read the whole column. Cody nails it.

 

This is the first of three posts written by Professor Mario Waissbluth about education in Chile. I invited him to contribute to the blog, because Chile represents our future if we continue our present course of action towards a market system built around the principles of testing and choice.

Chile´s Education (I): The most pro-market system in the world

Mario Waissbluth

This is the first of three columns on the contradictory condition of the Chilean educational system.

Today, I shall describe the political, socioeconomic and educational model.

Tomorrow, I will show the evidence and results of 35 years of for-profit hyper-privatization, and extreme teaching to the test.

Finally, I will provide some ideas for the necessary change of course, to alleviate the damage caused by the most segregated school structure in the OECD (after the small city-state of Macao).

Following Pinochet’s military coup in 1973, Chile started the most extreme neoliberal experiment in the world. No exaggeration here. The Tea Party would pale with envy. Designed by the Chilean disciples of Milton Friedman, the so called “Chicago Boys”, it was applied systematically (with the help of a bayonet) from 1973 until its replacement by a center left coalition in 1990.

This coalition basically continued extreme right policies – though with more social spending – because of cleverly designed constitutional constraints, plus an army keeping discrete and courteous watch from its quarters. Quite a few center-left politicians also acquired a taste for the wines of deregulated free market. Since the 2010 presidential elections, the very same group of Chicago boys and girls have been in power. Not their sons. The very same ones. Young Pinochet’s aides are today’s cabinet members and senators.

The basic principle of the model in education, health, pensions, and whatever you might think of, is subsidiarity: minimal role of the state, minimal regulations, low taxes. You take care of your family and that’s it. If you can pay for your education, health, or pensions, you do it. If you cannot, you don’t, and the state provides you with inexpensive and low quality services or protection.

Chile beats the hell out of the US in income concentration. Considering capital gains, the richest 1% takes 30.5% of the pie, as compared with 21% in the US, 11% in Japan and 9% in Sweden.

Public school enrollment has dropped (and keeps dropping) from 80% in 1980 to 37% today. Aside from 7% of students in fully private schools, public and private institutions compete for the coveted per capita voucher.

Now, get this: two thirds of the 56% of private voucher (charter) schools are for profit, and they can charge on top of it to parents. Therefore, the richest ones mix their sons with their socioeconomic peers, the middle class with the middle class, and so on down to the poorest which go mostly to free public schools. Subsidiarity by the book. Until now, anyone can set up a for-profit subsidized charter school anywhere, without any quality requirements whatsoever.

Teacher training also became fully unregulated. Today some universities and institutes “sell college degrees” (for a profit) to students who do not understand what they read when they enter to Schools of Education, and generally do not understand what they read when they obtain their college degree. National certification and examination of teachers is, of course, voluntary. Freedom. Freedom. The market will solve everything.

On the other hand, compulsory curriculum is extremely detailed. Therefore, teachers in Chile have 1700 class-hours per year, as compared with an average of 700 in the OECD countries. And testing… oh… you will envy it. Standardized national testing with consequences such as school closures (guess which) and bonus payments: it is applied in grades 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11. Later on, admission to the university is based almost exclusively on the results of… a national standardized test. Teaching to the test motivates all sorts of cheating in the tests, plus plenty of academic skimming to get better test results, the very basis of school competition.

The students exploded first in 2006, then with more force in 2011 and 2013. They are questioning not only the educational model, but also the Constitution and Mr. Friedman’s legacy in full.

Tomorrow I shall describe the results of 35 years of pro-market, fully deregulated economic policy and education. The law of the jungle, but with cannibals. Some of the results are good. Most stink.

—-
Mario Waissbluth (www.mariowaissbluth.com) has a PhD in engineering from the University of Wisconsin, Madison (1974). Currently he is a professor at Universidad de Chile and President of Fundación Educación 2020, an advocacy movement for equity and desegregation of the chilean school system (www.educacion2020.cl). His soon to be published book, with Random House (in spanish) is “Change of Course: A new way for chilean education”.

The Gates Foundation just showered more millions on allies prepared to spread Bill Gates’ gospel of testing, test-based teacher evaluation, and Common Core.

Millions for the young inexperienced teachers who fight tenure and demand testing (Educators4Excellence); millions for Jefferson County, Colorado, where the school board and superintendent believe in testing and privatization; millions to buy off the NEA; and more. Read the link to learn who else won Gates’ money this time.

The hundreds of millions that Gates has poured into teacher evaluation by test scores has thus far produced nothing but massive demoralization.

Will anyone tell Bill & Melinda?

A new website called Cheats for Change has been created in the wake of the Tony Bennett scandal.

Please take a look. It is very funny.

For those of you who do not follow education politics closely, Cheats for Change is a parody of Jeb Bush’s group called Chiefs for Change.

Bush and his Foundation for Educational Excellence (FEE) created Chiefs for Change to advance the Jeb Bush agenda of charter schools, vouchers, testing, competition, accountability, removing teacher tenure, and replacing teachers with technology.

There are eight “chiefs for change” a la Jeb Bush and the Florida miracle.

Tony Bennett, who previously served as chair of Chiefs for Change.

The current chair is Hanna Skandera of New Mexico.

The other members of Chiefs for Change are:

John White of Louisiana

Stephen Bowen of Maine (he had a little problem about pushing online learning in Maine)

Deborah Gist of Rhode Island

Chris Cerf of New Jersey

Kevin Huffman of Tennessee

Janet Barresi of Oklahoma

These are the leading lights of the testing, choice, and privatization crowd. Two (White and Huffman) are TFA alumni. Three (Cerf , White, and Gist) are Broad Academy alumni.

This comment was posted by a reader:

A HUMBLE OPINION ON THE CHANGING OF THE
GUARD

How will privatization of our school system over the presently run public school system be certain to have any effect on education let alone making education improve by having students achieve better grades? Is the hope to have education improved only because it is privatized? Is the hope to give people a choice in school variety? But we already have four choices in which school to send children: public school, Christian school, parochial school, and private public schools like Groton in Massachusetts. Maybe all that is certain with privatization is that one owner and manager, public education is dismissed and another owner and manager now runs the show, the profiteer. Now, who benefits for certain from this change of the guard of poor performing schools? The students? The teachers? The new owners?
Whether student learning will be bettered, whether ALL students, the present goal of NCLB, will improve is unknown for certain. If charter schools methods are so much better all that is necessary then would be for the public school to adopt same such methods. Who can say: is it possible student achievement can get worse with charter schools? Students learn their subjects through a teacher not who owns or manages or runs the educational system. Education should not be run as a business like management runs a business of selling and buying goods and services. Teachers and children are people, not commodities. In a way students are both employer and employee of their own business in their own education. Education is for them, not management to make a profit from. The teacher is the conduit, the aqueduct of bringing fresh water of learning for the student. Fire one teacher after privatization takes over and there is now no union there to help the dismissed person the class gets another teacher who may be worse yet and not better. So, fire and hire, fire and hire, like in private work places since charter schools have no unions; interesting fact.
It surely must be easier to gauge the effectiveness of say a machinist whose handiwork is an inanimate creation. The outcome of a machinist’s labor rests on 90% of the machinists’ competence and ability and 10% on the material used, that is whether the steel, iron etc, is flawed, etc. But to gauge effectiveness of one teacher with just one gauge, the test, when student class participation, seatwork, homework, or graded papers handed in of student’s answers to a video just viewed are other means of teacher evaluation for student achievement and progress, must surely be inaccurate. Why? Reason one: if a student gets a D on the test but does well with class participation, etc. the student can raise his score to a C or better. So the student achieves better than the test show’s she is. According to the test results, the teacher is poorly performing, along with his student, but the student herself, by her own effort and intelligence and with help from her teacher brought her grade up unknown to the test observer. The student has been an overall success unbeknown to the test observer (these tests include the regular classroom tests as well as those tests necessary for NCLB). Second reason: Because, apart from these other methods of evaluation the effectiveness of the teacher depends very much on the infinite variety of the personality, physical health, emotional health, of 20 or more human beings in the classroom, including the teacher’s own, as to whether pupils are listening to a lecture or are working on that written test. Such human qualities will determine much of the motivation of each student, and as such, in the words of that renown first and second century Roman professor and orator of public speaking, Quintilian, have “study and learning depend very much on the good will of the pupil,”(towards their classmates, education, their school, and their teacher) “a quality which can not be secured by compulsion,” and which was then and remains to this day a very big reason for the success or not of a student.
But with many, if not all unions weakened, or maybe some worse off, partly due to reaganism and globalism, and giving in to a successfully rapid and furious political and corporate abusiveness and assault to have the public blame union and teacher for total student failure, when in fact it is at least both participants to blame, the corporatists’ and political allies’ derision and the union and teachers defensive posturing, serves only to weaken education. Just how little or how much is less important then that some weakening occurs. And, with the general population down on education even before this abusiveness and also due to the billions going overseas for both wars and for foreign aid, many politicians of all parties ride this wave of popular discontent with education to the shoreline of and for their own political advantage.
Now, unless this is the primary intention of the political and corporate derision to weaken all but the classroom, where the real education exists and occurs and is insulated and protected, for the most part, by the noble teacher from the weakening of the system, then there is no good, or not enough good to condone the continued existence of the current group of reforms, is there?
I believe a successful attempt at privatizing any or all of the general welfare and public health and happiness is at best risky and at worst maybe illegal or even unconstitutional. Privatize social security, public schools or any other public function and where the government will seek to aid, equalize, and help retirees, etc, the private enterprisers will first need to determine the cost of helping and the need for securing a profit for themselves before considering promoting the public welfare and health and happiness. If a profit cannot be made, can profiteers be trusted to promote the public health and happiness which is a very important concept of our Enlightenment heritage? Profiteers will only promote the PUBLIC good once and foremost their own PRIVATE interests, made in profits, is promoted first, correct? The people’s trust and happiness should not be allowed to reside with people who will likely have a conflict of interest in promoting the general welfare. Once social security, public schools, health care, or any other public interest is privatized what will keep the profiteers, now the owners of that specific public interest from one day deciding that they now no longer want to own that public interest and either sell it to who knows who or downright just decide not to have it anymore?
And one last thing which should surely show the short-sightedness and poorly considered set of current reforms. Schools which continue to fail are ultimately closed down. The students of these closed schools now go to charter schools or to the schools which were closed when they were public schools and which now are reopened and managed by private enterprise. And now, like magic these children who were failing before will “poof” miraculously begin to achieve better, will now be a success for no other reason then because another manages the school. How much better will the programs, directives, etc. of the directors of a privately run school be, which will have no governmental restrictions, when the public schools now could likewise take the initiative if allowed by state and federal regulations to implement programs, no one knows. Why wait to privatize a school which will have little if any restrictions, when all that need be done today is lessen if not eliminate restrictions on our public schools so they can initiate programs on their own with no government interference and become more like the charter schools would be? Ludicrous.

Jersey Jazzman noticed that the proportion of students rated as proficient by New York’s State Education Department is very nearly identical to the proportion in the population of the state with a four-year degree.

It occurs to him that the phrase “college and career ready” is phony. It really means “ready for a four-year college degree.”

Should students be failed unless they are ready to get a four-year bachelor’s degree?

This is nuts.

Many good jobs do not require a four-year college degree.

Some graduates with a four-year degree are waiting on tables or selling Apple products for $12 an hour.

Why should New York state penalize students who will be doing important work for society and earning a good living as plumbers, electricians, construction workers, and other careers?

He observes: “…this is all about making the public education system look as bad as possible, so privatizers can move in and teachers unions can lose power. It’s a political agenda; it has nothing to do with education. “College and career ready,” like “achievement gap” and “x months of learning,” is a useless, phony phrase designed to set the parameters of the debate in a way that favors those who would blame our country’s serious problems almost exclusively on our public schools. Be on your guard whenever you hear it used – you’re probably being conned. “

 

 

The most reactionary and anti-union of the major foundations–the billionaire Walton Family Foundation–has awarded $20 million to Teach for America to send bright, ill-prepared new college graduates into the nation’s classrooms. The largest contingent –700–will go to Los Angeles.

That city has a large number of nonunion charter schools.

TFA aids the Walton ambition to privatize public schools and rid them of union teachers. As such, they are a mainstay of the privatization movement.