Archives for category: Privatization

Columnist Dan Carpenter of the Indianapolis Star understands what Tony Bennett was doing with the A-F grading system imported from Jeb Bush in Florida.

It was never about improving but about labeling so that here would always be a fresh crop set up for closure and privatization.

He writes: “Educators, from those with traditional public schools to those operating charters to those teaching teachers in universities, already had warned him about A-F. But they saw the jeopardy the other way around: It was and is a blunt instrument that treats parents choosing schools like shoppers for backpacks. And it sets schools up for state takeover, and management by private businesses with political connections, without giving them and their communities a fair chance to explain their numbers and describe their needs. It tends to financially reward the affluent.”

The A-F system contributed to Bennett’s loss last fall to Glenda Ritz. The relentless testing that Bennett imposed was his downfall. He lost to Ritz even though he had a 10-1 funding edge, which should have sufficed in a red state. One of his biggest contributors: testing giant McGraw-Hill.

Bruce Baker brilliantly explains here why he won’t use the term “corporate reform.”

The strategies now being imposed on the schools have failed when applied in corporate settings, he writes.

He looks at the use of two now-popular “reform” ideas in education: the portfolio model and evaluation by results.

The portfolio model is based on the belief that schools should compete, and that those in charge should close the ones that don’t have high test scores while adding new ones.

Baker shows that when Sears tried the portfolio model, it was a disaster.

Units competed with one another, and each one thought only about what was good for its own survival.

There was, as one would predict, the worst kind of competition for survival, with cream skimming.

The overall results were devastating to the corporation.

When IBM tried to reverse its declining fortunes, it adopted a competitive employee rating system.

This too was a disaster.

(Edwards Deming could have predicted these disasters, but that’s another subject.)

So, Baker argues that current education reform should not be called “corporate reform” because good corporations would never do what the “reformers” now insist upon.

But, I will continue to use the term “corporate reform” because I think he proves the point that I make.

The bad ideas now infesting public education came from the corporate sector, where they failed.

They are failed corporate ideas that are being imposed on public schools, where they also fail.

It is important to understand why they failed in the corporate world, because it helps to explain why they are failing in the education world.

So I will continue to refer to the “reformers” as corporate reformers because it captures the origins of their bad ideas.

They are the people insisting upon the portfolio model, upon teacher evaluation models that turn teaching into a metrical exercise, upon data as the goal of education, upon turning everything into a metric, upon closing community schools, upon lowering standards for entry into teaching. They are the people who think that Big Data can solve all problems, even those that can’t be measured. They are the people who say “you measure what you treasure,” although they sometimes say, “you treasure what you measure.” And they say, “if you can’t measure it, you can’t control it.”

If someone has a better term than “corporate reform,” I’m all ears.

 

Dr. June Atkinson, the state superintendent of instruction in North Carolina, said, ““For the first time in my career of more than 30 years in public education, I am truly worried about students in our care.”

Lindsay Wagner summarizes the damage done to public education by the North Carolina legislature:

It cut more than $500 million from the state’s public schools.

It passed a voucher program to allow students to take public money to private and religious schools.

And more:

The 2013-15 biennial budget introduces a raft of spending cuts to public schools that will result in no raises for teachers, larger class sizes, fewer teacher assistants, little support for instructional supplies or professional development, and what could amount to the dismantling of the North Carolina Teaching Fellows program. Teachers can also say goodbye to tenure and supplemental pay for advanced degrees.

Wagner asks, “Is this the beginning of the end for public education in North Carolina?”

The privatization movement is in full swing in North Carolina. What was once the most progressive state in the South is now leading the attack on public education. For the first time since Reconstruction, the governorship and both houses of the Legislature are in the hands of Republicans, and these are not moderate Republicans who want to preserve a strong public education system. These are radical privatizers who want to send public monies to private schools, religious schools, and entrepreneurs.

The governor’s education advisor, Eric Guckian, is a Teach for America alum. TFA won $5.1 million in the new budget.

With bankruptcy looming, buzzards are flying by to pick meat off the Motor City’s bones. Before they do, someone should talk to experts on the dangers of privatization:

Contact: Richard Allen Smith

July 23, 2013 rasmith@inthepublicinterest.org

**** MEDIA AVAILABILITY****

As Detroit Contemplates a “Fire Sale” of its Assets, Privatization Experts are Available to Discuss the Dangers of Selling Public Assets and Services

Washington, DC – As the City of Detroit faces an $18 billion Chapter 9 bankruptcy, there has been much discussion of a “fire sale” of public assets and services to private interests as a way to inject quick cash into the city’s budget. Across the country, for-profit corporations seek to capitalize on the misfortune of cash-strapped cities like Detroit, but in nearly all cases, the outsourcing of public services has resulted in a loss of public control over quality of life issues, reduced jobs and benefits for public employees, greater cost to taxpayers and a lower quality rendered service.

As Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr and various judges weigh in on what comes next, experts on privatization and responsible contracting are available to discuss the consequences of outsourcing, and what may be next for the City of Detroit.

Donald Cohen is the founder and executive director of In the Public Interest, a national resource center on privatization and responsible contracting. Donald is a founding board member of the Partnership for Working Families, a national federation of metropolitan-based research, policy and action centers. He is on the board of Green For All, the Ballot Initiatives Strategy Center, and the Center for Effective Government. Donald has recently published opinion pieces about privatization issues in Reuters and Huffington Post.

Shar Habibi is the Research and Policy Director of In the Public Interest, a national resource center on privatization and responsible contracting. She previously worked on issues related to state government contracting at a policy and research organization in Texas, where she focused on the privatization of social services. Before that, she worked for a government procurement consulting firm. She received a Masters in Public Affairs and a Masters in Business Administration from the University of Texas at Austin.

To schedule interviews with them, please contact Richard Allen Smith at rasmith@inthepublicinterest.org or (202) 327-8435.

###

Enron may have gone bankrupt, and its employees may have lost their life savings, but it left some people very rich.

Here EduShyster tells the story of Texas billionaire John Arnold. He is one of the lucky few who managed to walk away from the Enron debacle with more than $3 billion. Some former Enron execs are doing time. Not Arnold. You know he must be smart because he got out before the roof fell in, and the bottom fell out.

And how does he spend his vast wealth?

He does what canny investors do: he pours millions into the struggle to privatize American public education. He has given millions to KIPP, StudentsFirst, and TFA. And he has a special interest in making sure that teachers don’t have pensions.

Billionaires have a hard time understanding why anyone needs a pension. They don’t need pensions. Why should teachers get them?

A Connecticut teacher named Linda who comments frequently on the blog decided to research the record of Paul Vallas. This is her summary:

“I have been keeping track for a while now…easy to goggle Vallas and Pelto, Ravitch, Mercedes Schneider, Philly Notebook, George Schmidt, substance news.

Who is Paul Vallas and why is he coming to Madison?

Vallas launched the nation’s most extensive experiment in privatization, which was evaluated by the RAND Corporation.

Here is RAND’s report on Vallas’ foray into the “diverse provider model.”

Click to access RAND_RB9239.pdf

“The major findings of the analysis of achievement effects under the diverse provider model in its first four years of operation are as follows:

http://thenotebook.org/summer-2007/07119/vallas-leaves-changed-district-again-tumult

VALLAS FACTS: Philadelphia schools ‘bankrupt’? Only because austerity politics of the ruling class dictate that lies and the policies of ‘standards and accountability’ have been an expensive failure

http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=4386

VALLAS FACTS: ‘The Paul Vallas I Knew’… Paul Vallas and the origins of the corporate ‘school reform’ policy to eliminate black teachers and principals in Chicago.

http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=4397

VALLAS FACTS: ‘The Paul Vallas Hoax’ in the March 2002 Substance exposed every lie, half-truth, and self serving utteration of Vallas… But it took other places a decade to check out Vallas’s nonsense and try to stop his ‘school reform’ nonsense

http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=4370

Indianapolis, $18 million

http://jonathanpelto.com/2012/08/13/paul-vallas-new-corporate-partnership-signs-18-million-deal-with-indianapolis-school-system/

Click to access revised-reco-and-provider-info.pdf

See claims page 10 and 11:

NOLA debunked:

Here is the deception: “combined school districts” means RSD and the 17-school Orleans Parish Schools (OPSB), which was primarily magnet schools turned into selective admission charters. Attempts to make RSD look better by combining its data with that of OPSB is nothing new. See this post:

“In Case You Missed It… You Really Didn’t Miss Much”

Also, the “50% decrease in dropout rate” is an inflated stat; also, it does not include the fact that the definition of “dropout” was changed to exclude students who after dropping out decided to attend education programs (like night school). See this link:

http://www.thepelicanpost.org/2011/04/11/louisiana-dropout-rate-falls-31-percent/

Another word regarding Edison Learning (pg 13 of report): Jeb Bush used the Florida teacher pension money to bail out Edison, a company that never succeeded in what it said it could do: raise student scores for less money:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonie-haimson/chris-cerf-there-you-go-a_b_835180.html

New Orleans’ Recovery School District: The Lie Unveiled

The school- and district-level data presented in this post unequivocally demonstrates that the state-run RSD is hardly a miracle. It should be an embarrassment to any reformer insisting otherwise. And it should come as no wonder why RSD doesn’t even mention school letter grades on its website.

The history of the state-run RSD in New Orleans is one of opportunism and deceit, of information twisting and concealing, in order to promote a slick, corporate-benefitting, financially-motivated agenda. It is certainly not “for the children.”

To other districts around the nation who are considering adopting “the New Orleans miracle”:

Reread this post, and truly consider what it is that you would be getting: A lie packaged to only look appealing from afar.

New Orleans’ Recovery School District: The Lie Unveiled

Paul’s program in New Orleans was not to rebuild public education after the hurricane, but to create a privatized system of schools.

The NOLA miracle that wasn’t:

http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/rsds-watered-down-incremental-miracle-and-continued-fiscal-embarrassment/”

The Los Angeles Times published a first-rate editorial about the disastrous federal micromanagement spawned by NCLB. It also takes the Obama administration to the woodshed for its own misguided micromanagement of the nation’s public schools.

It says: “The nation is ripe for rebellion against the rigid law and the Obama administration’s further efforts to micromanage how schools are run.”

It adds:

“Passed in 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act used the leverage of federal education funding to push states into doing more for their disadvantaged, black and Latino students, whose academic achievement was appallingly low. Although public schools fall under state rather than federal purview, the rationale behind the interference was that because Congress provided some funding, it had an interest in making sure that the money was achieving its aims. That’s fair enough.

“Unfortunately, the punitive law ushered in a regimen of intensive testing and harsh sanctions against schools that failed to meet improvement markers that were extremely difficult to achieve, sometimes meaningless and often counterproductive. Later, the Obama administration added more layers of interference by pushing its own favored reforms — such as a common curriculum for all states and the inclusion of test scores as a substantial factor in teacher evaluations — in some cases in return for waivers on the No Child Left Behind requirements.”

The federal government was wrong to make scores on standardized tests the measure of all things. It was a colossal error. We didn’t need NCLB to tell us that poor and minority kids were not getting the same test scores as their advantaged peers. We knew that from state scores and SAT scores and multiple other sources. The issue was what to do about it. Congress decided that measuring the gap was reform. however, none of their “remedies”–enacted without any evidence–was effective. Twelve years after the law was enacted, none of the law’s so-called remedies has worked.

The fact is that no one–repeat, NO ONE–in Congress or the U.S. Department of Education (then or now) knows how to reform the nation’s public schools. Secretary Rod Paige didn’t, nor did Secretary Margaret Spellings. Certainly Secretary of Education Arne Duncan doesn’t. His Renaissance 2010 plan in Chicago was a much-hyped failure that has left the wreckage of lives and communities in its wake. Why was he allowed to turn Renaissance 2010 into Race to the Top?

The one-size-fits-all NCLB is wrong for most schools, and Race to the Top heaps on more punishments while blaming teachers for low test scores. This law and this program, and the thinking behind them, have diverted the public’s attention from the root causes of poor academic performance, which include poverty, segregation, and under-resourced schools. Instead of confronting root causes, our elites confront the failure of the NCLB regime of high-stakes testing by demanding more of the same and making the stakes higher for teachers and principals.

Kudos to the Los Angeles Times for recognizing that the federal government has overstepped the bounds of federalism, has imposed impossible mandates, and is out of its league.

The dilemma in framing the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is that Congress can’t see beyond the narrow and punitive mindset of NCLB. It is locked into stale thinking. It refuses to see the disastrous consequences of both NCLB and Race to the Top.

Future historians will puzzle out why the Obama administration threw away the chance to bring a fresh vision to federal education policy and why it chose to tighten the screws on the nation’s schools and teachers and why it chose to lend its prestige and funding to the privatization movement.

In the future, I believe, the period that began in 2001 and continues to this day will be remembered as the “Bush-Obama era” in education. It will be recalled as a time when a liberal Democratic president watched in silence as states attacked the teaching profession, lowered standards for entry into teaching, enacted laws to end collective bargaining, authorized privatization with federal funding and encouragement, and passed laws permitting vouchers for private and religious schools.

Wendy Lecker, civil rights attorney and director of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, read an opinion article in the New York Times and was outraged by its recommendations. Here is her analysis:

 

It seems like these days, one has to be wary of anyone claiming to “help” poor neighborhoods.

An oped in the New York Times on July 13 by Michael Rubinger extolled the virtues of federal “new market tax credits” to “fix” neighborhoods in decline. Among the “valuable” neighborhood investments Rubinger mentions are charter schools.

Anyone paying attention the past year knows that expanding charter schools has been a weapon to destroy neighborhoods, not revitalize them. In Chicago, officials funneled public money to charter schools while defunding public schools. Then, declaring public schools “underutilized,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel closed an unprecedented number of neighborhood schools. These neighborhood schools were the anchors of their communities and parents and children vigorously protested their closure. A similar tragic story played itself out in Philadelphia, another city and state that starved the city’s public schools while funding charters, then closed a record number of neighborhood schools, despite strenuous protests by parents and children.

These new charters very often fail to serve all the children in those neighborhoods, regularly excluding ELL students and students with disabilities.

Not much of a neighborhood revitalization plan.

Although I am not much of a tax maven, I heard that term “new market tax credits” before. In 2010, Juan Gonzalez of the Daily News wrote about their connection to charter schools. It turns out these federal tax credits are a vehicle for banks and hedge funds to make enormous profits on the public dime. As Gonzalez explained:

“the investors who put up the money to build the charter schools get to basically virtually double their money in seven years through a 39 percent tax credit from the federal government. In addition, this is a tax credit on money that they’re lending, so they’re collecting interest on the loans, as well as getting the 39 percent tax credit. They piggyback the tax credit on other kinds of federal tax credits, like historic preservation or job creation or Brownfields credits. The result is, you can put in $10 million and in seven years double your money. And the problem is that the charter schools end up paying in rents the debt service on these loans.”

And that debt is paid, of course through taxpayer funds.

These credits help destroy neighborhoods but they certainly revitalize the balance sheets of these crafty banks and hedge funds!

And surely Michael Rubinger knows it. Just last week, he was a featured speaker in a symposium instructing Wall Street how to cash in on charters, entitled: Bonds and Blackboards: Investing in Charter Schools (New York, NY).

If the wealthy want to make a difference, they should pay their fair share in taxes so that public schools and communities can have the resources they need to provide the supports to combat the effects of poverty, help overcome the challenges of language barriers and provide the special education services to ensure that every child is provided the education they deserve and need to achieve her greatest potential.

The return on investment for those children and our society would be greater than the hedge fund managers could ever achieve.

A reader writes:

yes, yes! As a black educator and unfortunately a TFA alum who has now been a teacher for 15 years, I don’t understand why Obama and Booker have embraced this corporate style of reform. I worked tirelessly to elect Obama but I continue to find his governance particularly his stance on education and civil rights disappointing. I will not do the same for Booker and I hope that the teacher’s union does not endorse him. Booker does not have grassroots support, many Newark residents see the destruction he has wreaked on their schools and do not support him. He is the darling of the media and white liberal/moderate crowd as well as hedge funds and business community. We all know that TFA and the privatization movement it has spawned is directly responsible for the decline in the black middle class. Black female educators have been disproportionately impacted by layoffs and “evaluations.” Obama as the first black president and Booker as the heir to this legacy and possible contender for higher office should recognize this and change their position on what’s right for schools before it is too late. They should support public schools, community schools and educators. Sometimes it feels like we (anti-reformers) are screaming at people like Obama and Booker through a sound proof glass door. They can see us, we can see them but they can’t hear us and they won’t open the door because they don’t want to hear the truth.

Cory Booker, mayor of Newark, is heavily favored to win the race to replace the late Senator Frank Lautenberg.

Booker doesn’t like public education. He is an avid proponent of charters and vouchers. He is active in Democrats for Education Reform, the Wall Street hedge fund managers’ advocacy group for privatization.

As Jersey Jazzman points out, there is a credible alternative: Rush Holt, a member of Congress.

Holt is a physicist. He would bring deep knowledge of science and education to the Senate.

Booker would bring a determination to privatize public education.