Archives for category: Privatization

Edward Snowden, as everyone knows by now, is the 29-year-old man who leaked secrets about our government’s surveillance of phone calls and emails. I don’t know if he is a traitor or hero or something else, but I do think that his revelations raise concerns for all of us.

As we realize by now, government and private-sector activities are dedicated to the amassing of Big Data that includes everything we do. Government is doing this, its defenders say, to protect us against terrorism. Business is mining Big Data to sell things to us. The more they know about us, the better they can develop and market their products to us.

All of this becomes relevant to educators and parents because efforts are underway to assemble a national database called inBloom. It was funded by the Gates Foundation to the tune of $100 million and developed by Rupert Murdoch’s Wireless Generation. Should strangers have access to the confidential information of children and teachers? I don’t think so. The time to stop it is now.

As I read about the events in the New York Times on Monday, certain facts and statements were especially salient.

Think of it. Edward Snowden was a high school dropout who was hired as a security guard but soon rose to become an IT consultant for Booz Allen and Hamilton, a mammoth company that collected over $1 billion for intelligence work in the past year. The New York Times writes: “As evidence of the company’s close relationship with government, the Obama administration’s chief intelligence official, James R. Clapper, Jr., is a former Booz executive. The official who held that post in the Bush administration, John M. McConnell, now works for Booz.”

The story goes on to say, “The national security apparatus has been more and more privatized and turned over to contractors,” said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit group that studies government contracting. “This is something the public is largely unaware of, how more than a million private contractors are cleared to handle highly sensitive matters.”

In another article in the business section, spokesmen for the high-tech industry in Silicon Valley insisted that they had to be free of any government regulation, because it would “snuff out innovation..Bureaucrats should keep their hands off things they do not understand, which is just about everything we do out here.”

“So the first mystifying thing for some here is how the leading companies–including Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Apple, and Facebook–apparently made it easier for the National Security Agency to gain access. Only Twitter seems to have declined.”

The government data mining program is called Prism. It collects emails, video, voice and stored data on the Internet.

And one more chilling thought: “In 1999, Scott McNealy, the chief executive of Sun Microsystems, summed up the valley’s attitude toward personal data in what became a defining comment of the dot-com boom, “You have zero privacy,” he said, “get used to it.”

Despite last minute efforts to derail vouchers, the North Carolina House appropriations committee approved a budget with $50 million for vouchers. The money would be taken away from the state’s underfunded public schools. North Carolina presently ranks 48th in the nation in supporting its public schools. Some Republican legislators from rural districts pointed out that there are no private schools in their districts, but their concerns were dismissed.

As usual, the vouchers are euphemistically called “opportunity scholarships.”

The irony of Philadelphia’s turn to privatization is that Philadelphia had the most extensive trial of privatization of any city in the nation about ten years ago. The district schools outperformed the privately managed schools, which lost their contracts. But that predated the charter movement, which is now hyped as having a secret formula to raise test scores at a lower cost.

This comment came from a retired teacher in Philadelphia.

He writes:

As a retired public school teacher, I have watched Mayor Nutter promote charters over public schools in the seven years he has been Mayor. He is current President of the U.S. conference of Mayors (Michelle Rhee’s husband, the Mayor of Sacramento is Second Vice President) http://tinyurl.com/lfzgl32 where is has been promoting the corporate education reform agenda.

Last week he joined other Pennsylvania Mayors to demand that Governor Corbett restore the $1 billion he cut from education in his first year in office. Mayor Nutter held a separate press conference with charter operators to say that more money was needed to expand charters.

For the history of the Philadelphia education crisis see:
The 2013-14 “Doomsday Budget” of the School District of Philadelphia: How Did It Come to This?
http://tinyurl.com/mwkclqr

Will Bunch, Philadelphia journalist, reports rumors that state officials may be planning to privatize all of Philadelphia.

Philadelphia schools tried privatization a decade ago and it didn’t work. But this seems to be the cheapest way to get rid of the Philly problem instead of giving the kids and schools what they need.

This comment was posted in response to a report by Education Trust Midwest about Michigan’s expansion of low-performing (and failing) charter schools. The irony is that the original theory of charters was that they would either meet their goals or lose their charter. twenty plus years ago, no one considered the possibility that for-profit and even nonprofit charters would make political contributions and assemble a political base that outweighed the quality of the schools.

The reader writes:

“Yes, there are charters of varying quality. The problem in Michigan is that the state has no real authority to close a charter (even though it gets state money). A member of the state board of education noted in an article months ago (on the same topic) that it’s up to the authorizers to close the school. So in the case of a for-profit organization (like Leona Group) the only motivation to close a school would be a lack of profitability rather than a poor quality school.

Also understand that Michigan’s ideological legislature (particularly the House) doesn’t really care about school quality when it comes to charters. Charters don’t typically unionize and they underpay their teachers relative to public schools. This is in the interest of the legislature (and governor). So they really don’t mind that many charters underperform.

In 2011, Michigan passed many policies that seemed to make some sense. Public school couldn’t really debate accountability measures too hard. In some ways, those laws were well-intended. But the state’s magnificent investment in charter expansion and the money-pit EAA (which is getting so much outside money and additional state money that it is unbelievable) has revealed an ideological approach rather than an educational reform.

Charter schools have become the “out” for parents who want their kids away from other kids more than anything. Some charters are really just a way for churches to have a school funded by the state. One local charter is really just the kids from a local mega-church. As has been noted many times, charters are not a game changer. They vary in quality. This is particularly noteworthy in that the report comes from EdTrust who is no friend of public schools, by the way.”

The Chicago Public Schools’ policy of closing public schools and opening charter schools will obviously promote privatization. What it will also promote is inequality and lack of transparency.

This is the contention of a panel that recently met to discuss the closure of some 50 public schools.

Earlier today, Ben Austin wrote an open letter to me on Huffington Post. He expressed dismay about my characterization of him and his group Parent Revolution. Read his letter here. Here is my reply.

Dear Ben Austin,

Thank you for your invitation to engage in dialogue in your letter posted on Huffington Post.

You probably know that I have been writing a daily blog for the past fourteen months and during that time, I have written over 4,000 posts. I can’t remember any time when I have lost my temper other than when I wrote about your successful effort to oust an elementary school principal in Los Angeles named Irma Cobian.

I apologize for calling you “loathsome,” though I do think your campaign against a hardworking, dedicated principal working in an inner-city school was indeed loathsome. And it was wrong of me to say that there was a special place in hell reserved for anyone “who administers and funds this revolting organization that destroys schools and fine educators like Irma Cobian.”

As I said, I lost my temper, and I have to explain why.

I don’t like bullies. When I saw this woman targeted by your powerful organization, it looked like bullying. Your organization is funded by many millions of dollars from the Walton Family Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation. You have a politically powerful organization, and you used your power to single out this one woman and get her fired.

Your organization sent in paid staff to collect signatures from parents. The teachers in the school were not permitted to express their opinion to parents about your efforts to fire their principal. When you succeeded in getting her fired, 21 of the 22 teachers on staff requested a transfer. That suggests that Cobian has the loyalty of her staff and is a good leader.

Who is this woman that you ousted?

All I know about her is what I read in this article in the Los Angeles Times.

It said: “More than two decades ago, Cobian walked away from a high-powered law firm to teach. The daughter of Mexican immigrants, she said she was inspired by a newspaper article about the low high school graduation rates of Latinos and wanted to make a difference.

“Her passion for social justice led her to Watts in 2009.”

Irma Cobain is now in her fourth year as principal of the school, and you decided that her time was up.

What did her teachers say about her?

“Third-grade teacher Kate Lewis said Irma Cobian is the best principal she’s had in nine years at Weigand Avenue Elementary School in Watts.

“Joseph Shamel called Cobian a “godsend” who has used her mastery of special education to show him how to craft effective learning plans for his students.”

“Fourth-grade teacher Hector Hernandez said Cobian is the first principal he’s had who frequently pops into classrooms to model good teaching herself. Recently, he said, she demonstrated how to teach about different literary genres by engaging students in lively exercises using characters from the “Avengers” comic book and film.”

When Cobian arrived at the Weigand Avenue Elementary school four years ago, she found a school with low test scores, low parent involvement, and divisiveness over a dual-language program. “All the students come from low-income families, more than half are not fluent in English and a quarter turn over every year,” the Los Angeles Times story said.

Cobian decided to focus on improving literacy and raising morale. She certainly won over the faculty.

The day after Cobian learned about the vote removing her, she went to a second-grade classroom to give prizes to children who had read 25 books this year. She cheered those who met the goal and encouraged those who were trying. But she could not hide her sadness.

“I need happiness today,” Cobian told the bright-eyed students. “What do I do when I’m sad?”

“Come here!” the students sang out.

For a moment, her sadness gave way to smiles. But later, she said: “I am crushed.”

Ben, how did you feel when you read that? I felt sad. I felt this was a caring and dedicated person who had been singled out unfairly.

Ben, I hope you noticed in the article that Dr. John Deasy, the superintendent of schools in Los Angeles, praised the plan that Cobian and her staff developed for improving the school. He called it a “well-organized program for accelerated student achievement.” He thanked Cobian for her commitment and hard work.” But you decided she should be fired.

Ironically, the parent who worked with you to fire Cobian said she preferred Weigand to her own neighborhood school where she had concerns about bullying. Even stranger, the parents at Cobian’s school voted to endorse her plan. Your parent spokesperson said she did not like the plan because it focused on reading and writing, but she told the reporter from the Los Angeles Times that she actually never read the plan.

I understand from your letter, Ben, that you somehow feel you are a victim because of what I wrote about you. But, Ben, you are not a victim. Irma Cobian is the victim here. She lost her job because of your campaign to get rid of her. She is the one who was humiliated and suffered loss of income and loss of reputation. You didn’t. You still have your organization, your staff, and the millions that the big foundations have given you.

I am sorry you had a tough childhood. We all have our stories about growing up. I am one of eight children. My father was a high-school dropout. My mother immigrated from Bessarabia and was very proud of her high school diploma from the Houston public schools. She was proud that she learned to speak English “like a real American.” My parents were grateful for the free public schools of Houston, where I too graduated from high school. We had our share of problems and setbacks but I won’t go on about myself or my siblings because my story and yours are really beside the point. What troubles me is what you are doing with the millions you raise. You use it to sow dissension, to set parents against parents, parents against teachers, parents against principals. I don’t see this as productive or helpful. Schools function best when there is collaboration among teachers, parents, administrators, and students. Schools have a better chance of success for the children when they have a strong community and culture of respect.

Your “parent trigger” destroys school communities. True to its name, the “trigger” blasts them apart. It causes deep wounds. It decimates the spirit of respect and comity that is necessary to build a strong community. Frankly, after the school shootings of recent years, your use of the metaphor of a “parent trigger” is itself offensive. We need fewer triggers pointed at schools and educators. Please find a different metaphor, one that does not suggest violence and bloodshed.

It must be very frustrating to you and your funders that–three years after passage of the “parent trigger” law– you can’t point to a single success story. I am aware that you persuaded the parents at the Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, California, to turn their public school over to a privately operated charter. I recall that when parents at the school tried to remove their signatures from your petition, your organization went to court and won a ruling that they were not allowed to rescind their signatures. Ultimately only 53 parents in a school of more than 600 children chose the charter operator. Since the charter has not yet opened, it is too soon to call that battle a success for Parent Revolution. Only the year before, the Adelanto Charter Academy lost its charter because the operators were accused of financial self-dealing.

But, Ben, let me assure you that I bear you no personal ill will. I just don’t approve of what you are doing. I think it is wrong to organize parents to seize control of their public school so they can fire the staff or privatize it. If the principal is doing a bad job, it is Dr. Deasy’s job to remove her or him. I assume that veteran principals and teachers get some kind of due process, where charges are filed and there is a hearing. If Cobain was as incompetent as you say, why didn’t Dr. Deasy bring her up on charges and replace her?

I also have a problem with the idea that parents can sign a petition and hand their public school off to a private charter corporation. The school doesn’t belong to the parents whose children are enrolled this year. It belongs to the public whose taxes built it and maintains it. As the L.A. Times story pointed out, one-quarter of the children at Weigand Avenue Elementary School are gone every year. The parents who sign a petition this year may not even be parents in the school next year. Why should they have the power to privatize the school? Should the patrons of a public library have the power to sign a petition and privatize the management? Should the people using a public park have the right to take a vote and turn the park over to private management?

We both care about children. I care passionately about improving education for all children. I assume you do as well. You think that your organized raids on public schools and professionals will lead to improvement. I disagree. Schools need adequate resources to succeed. They also need experienced professionals, a climate of caring, and stability. I don’t see anything in the “trigger” concept that creates the conditions necessary for improvement. Our teachers and principals are already working under too much stress, given that schools have become targets for federal mandates and endless reforms.

I suggest that educators need respect and thanks for their daily work on behalf of children. If they do a bad job, the leadership of the school system is responsible to take action. What educators don’t need is to have a super-rich, super-powerful organization threatening to pull the trigger on their career and their good name.

Ben, thanks for the open letter and the chance to engage in dialogue. If you don’t mind, I want to apologize to Irma Cobain on your behalf. She was doing her best. She built a strong staff that believes in her. She wrote a turnaround plan that Dr. Deasy liked and the parents approved. Ms. Cobain, if you read this, I hope you can forgive Ben. Maybe next time, he will think twice, get better information, and consider the consequences before he decides to take down another principal.

Diane Ravitch

A reader offered the following comments on the relationship between Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and the Broad Foundation:

“There is no way Duncan limited testing when he was in Chicago because it would have impeded the corporate education reform agenda.

Arne Duncan was on the board of the Broad Foundation while he was the leader of Chicago schools. The modus operandi of Broad Foundation is deception. It is the method of implementing the Broad Foundations anti-democratic agenda.

On Page 10 of the 2009/2010 Broad Foundation Annual Report http://tinyurl.com/6w5sps2
it says:

“Prior to becoming U.S. secretary of education, Arne Duncan was CEO of Chicago Public Schools, where he hosted 23 Broad Residents. Duncan now has five Broad Residents and alumni working with him in the U.S. Department of Education.”

On Page 35 of the same annual report it says:

“The election of President Barack Obama and his appointment of Arne Duncan, former CEO of Chicago Public Schools, as the U.S. secretary of education, marked the pinnacle of hope for our work in education reform. In many ways, we feel the stars have finally aligned.

With an agenda that echoes our decade of investments—charter schools, performance pay for teachers, accountability, expanded learning time and national standards—the Obama administration is poised to cultivate and bring to fruition the seeds we and other reformers have planted.”

David Sirota sees the current disastrous era of school “reform” as a shell game that blames teachers and schools while diverting the gaze of the public from the root causes of poor academic performance.

Persist. This too shall pass.

Leslie T. Fenwick, dean of education at Howard University, argues that what is called school “reform” is really about urban land development, not about improving the lives of disadvantaged minority children. She says, follow the money to understand the “reforms.”

Dean Fenwick doesn’t mince words. She writes:

“The truth can be used to tell a lie. The truth is that black parents’ frustration with the quality of public schools is at an all time righteous high. Though black and white parents’ commitment to their child’s schooling is comparable, more black parents report dissatisfaction with the school their child attends. Approximately 90 percent of black and white parents report attending parent teacher association meetings and nearly 80 percent of black and white parents report attending teacher conferences. Despite these similarities, fewer black parents (47 percent) than white parents (64 percent) report being very satisfied with the school their child attends. This dissatisfaction among black parents is so whether these parents are college-educated, high income, or poor.

“The lie is that schemes like Teach For America, charter schools backed by venture capitalists, education management organizations (EMOs), and Broad Foundation-prepared superintendents address black parents concerns about the quality of public schools for their children. These schemes are not designed to cure what ails under-performing schools. They are designed to shift tax dollars away from schools serving black and poor students; displace authentic black educational leadership; and erode national commitment to the ideal of public education.”

What is needed to change the stagnant status quo? Read the article.