Archives for category: Privatization

I earlier reported the story on Huffington Post that said a number of top staffers had resigned, including Democrats. Hari Sevugan was a key figure in the article. He here explains his continued loyalty to Michelle Rhee’s mission.

I hope he will write again to explain why he thinks that Rhee’s support for for-profit charters, for vouchers, and for the agenda of rightwing governors helps our society’s most vulnerable children.

Diane – I’ve never posted a comment on your blog, but as one of the subjects mentioned in the article you have extrapolated from to make your point in this entry, I felt that I needed to on this occasion. I’m also writing this on my iphone, so please forgive me any wayward autocorrects.

You have often suggested, as you have here, that folks at StudentsFirst and more broadly the education reform community are working to privatize education and diminish teaching and teachers.

You afforded a story regarding my time at StudentsFirst enough validity to use it to criticize the organization. So, I hope you will afford my opinion based on that time the same credibility when I tell you this:

To suggest that folks working at StudentsFirst or in education reform are doing anything but working for the benefit of kids is plain wrong.

Everyone I worked with at StudentsFirst and in the education reform community was and is exclusively interested in improving the lives of children. They are not out to diminish teachers, but rather they recognize the importance of teachers in ensuring children have the best education possible. They are not out to destroy public education, but rather their fealty belongs to the public school students served by that system.

The thing is – I believe the same is true of teachers unions and many advocates, including you, who are opposed to education reform.

While I no longer work at StudentsFirst on a day-to-day basis, I will continue to work with them in other ways, as well as with other reformers, toward their goal of ensuring every child has access to high quality education.

In this post you ask, “What part of [Rhee’s] agenda is bipartisan?” There are many Democrats, including this one, who work toward reform because public schools are not currently serving every child – too often children of color and from poverty – as they should. These children are being denied a fundamental civil right. It is a core Democratic value to ensure that their civil rights are enforced. It is a core Democratic value to ensure poverty or socio-economic status is not a barrier to opportunity. It is a core Democratic value to ensure teachers are respected for the work they do.

There will be disagreements on how to enact those values at a policy level, on both sides and at times within the same side (see Newark teachers deal) but I hope we can abstain from characterizing motivations or values of those we disagree with. (Or in this case mischaracterizing them). I hope we can raise the level of the dialogue in this debate to reflect the importance of the subject matter both sides are trying to serve – our kids.

Hope this finds you otherwise well and doing better things on a Friday night that reading this.

– Hari

Joy Resmovits at Huffington Post has a revealing story about how top staff at Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst have abandoned the ship.

No one went on the record to explain the exodus but it is hard to see how any Democrat could be part of a campaign to curtail collective bargaining rights and to diminish the rights and status of teachers. Unions and teachers are the base of the Democratic Party.

Think about how frequently Rhee has allied herself with rightwing governors like Mitch Daniels, John Kasich, Rick Scott, and Chris Christie. She has advocated for for-profit charter schools and for-profit universities. She supports vouchers. She was honored along with Governor Scott Walker by the far-right American Federation for Children, which is passionate for vouchers and privatization of public schools.

What part of her agenda is bipartisan?

Steve Zimmer is an alumnus of Teach for America.

He is not your typical TFA-er.

He was elected to the Los Angeles Unified school board in 2009, after seventeen years as a public school teacher.

He will be opposed by Kate Anderson, who has endorsements and major funding from the powerful charter school lobby.

Zimmer, because of his experience as a teacher, has become an outspoken, articulate supporter of students, teachers, and public education.

He has tried to slow down the value-added assessment juggernaut; he wants multiple measures.

The charter folks want to get Zimmer off the board because a few months ago, he offered a resolution calling for a higher level of accountability for charters, better auditing and reporting, more collaboration with public schools, and a moratorium on the opening of new charter schools until the new accountability measures are created.

Los Angeles is a major target for the charter lobby. It now has more than 100,000 children in charters, about 15% of the children in the district, more children than in any other district in the nation.

In light of the rapid growth of charters and their uneven performance, Zimmer said it was time to step back, establish reasonable oversight, and frame a reasonable policy for oversight and future growth.

Superintendent John Deasey said Zimmer’s resolution was “unnecessary.”

Two thousand charter parents turned out to hoot and ridicule Zimmer’s resolution.

And now the charter lobby is poised to knock him out.

Kate Anderson is a lawyer who has worked for Democratic officials. She is a mother of young children who attend public schools. She has pledged to support more charters.

Davis Guggenheim, director of “Waiting for ‘Superman,'” is holding a fund-raiser for Kate Anderson at the Sony Pictures commissary.

Steve Zimmer has the wisdom that comes from his 17 years in the classroom. He has the audacity to post on his website an article that showed that Los Angeles’ public schools outperformed the charter schools.

If the charter lobby manages to defeat him, it will be a very bad omen for the future of public education in Los Angeles.

Anthony Cody has written a crisp analysis of the differences between what corporate reformers want and what supporters of public education want.

People like Anthony and me are often told to be accommodating, to be more receptive of the corporate style ideas.

But, as Anthony shows in this article, there are genuine differences.

Public education is facing an existential threat to its existence from people who support privatization.

They do this in a clever way, by talking about civil rights while advocating privatization.

They say it’s “for the children,” but somehow there are adults who seem to benefit more than the kids.

“They can’t wait,” but it’s not their life and career that is sacrificed while they impose risky schemes.

Yes, there is a dichotomy, and we cannot quietly acquiesce.

I posted a couple of times about John Merrow’s PBS profile of the Rocketship charter chain, but I think there is more to be said on the subject.

The chain now has seven charters in San Jose, California, and it will soon expand into many more urban “markets.” When it enters a new territory, it expects a commitment for at least five charters. It aims to enroll one million children eventually. It is presently planning new schools in Nashville, San Antonio, Milwaukee, and other cities.

Merrow’s show was well done and nicely framed. He begins with old documentary footage of Henry Ford’s assembly line and asks why we as a nation have not even able to “mass produce” high quality schools. He then shifts to Rocketship, where we see children, teachers, and parents chanting in what appears to be a daily ritual. I think they were chanting some sort of self-esteem boosting words or slogans, like “I am a Rocketship,” but I’m not certain of that.

Then we learn the following:

About 75% of the teachers are Teach for America, so we don’t expect to see many experienced teachers.

Students spend two hours a day in front of a computer, which assesses their skill levels and offers them problems adjusted to their ability.

The school has fewer teachers because of its computer time, which saves about $500,000 a year.

The founder of Rocketship is unalterably opposed to unions, because he says they would limit his flexibility.

The teachers are paid more than public school teachers, and some are paid a good deal more, though it was not explained what determined compensation.

The schools have high test scores, even though their students are low-income.

The schools offer neither art or music. They seem to be focused solely on tested subjects.

There was some talk of changing the computer labs next year, though it was not clear how.

Some of the students, especially the younger ones, appeared to be bored at the computer.

The takeaway?

These are schools for poor children. Not many advantaged parents would want their children in this bare-bones Model-T school. It appears that these children are being trained to work on an assembly line. There is no suggestion that they are challenged to think or question or wonder or create.

Bit their test scores are high.

I disagree with this post by a faithful reader. But I think it deserves discussion.

There are many reasons to object to privatization.

One is that there is no evidence that privately managed firms that operate public services provide more efficient or less costly service. Another is that privately managed firms, when operating for profit, extract public dollars for investors that taxpayers intended for children, for educational programs that directly benefit children, for reduced class sizes, —and not to enrich shareholders. Privately managed nonprofits often pay salaries that would be unacceptable in the public sector. Privately managed firms tend to exclude the costliest clients to minimize their own costs, thus leaving the hardest cases for the less well funded public sector agency. And last, to destroy public education, which is so inextricably linked to our notions of democracy and citizenship would be an assault on the commonweal. Let us not forget that public education has been the instrument of the great social movements for more than the past half century–desegregation, gender equality, disability rights, and the assimilation of immigrants. Once it is gone, it is gone, and that would be a crime against ourselves.

The reader writes:

“Ladd and Fiske correctly identify the four risks to the public education system of the privatization movement, but they assume that the public education system is an unqualified “good.” What if privatization produces different and better goods? Public education implements mainly a “progressive” philosophy of government. By the word “democracy” it means government control of education and almost everything else it can get its hands on. “Social justice” is the well-worn substitute term for ‘redistribute the wealth.’ I mean no name calling to point out that has been the communist agenda from the beginning and remains the communist agenda.

“The whole point of privatization, then, is to free American education from the statist agenda (which implies ‘community’ responsiblity for every individual and submission of every individual to the tyranny of the community). Most here see public education as an unmixed good. It’s opponents think otherwise, and their motives are clear.

“What is most surprising, however, is to find the Obama Education Department so staunchly behind the measures that we ALL agree are destroying the public school systems. NCLB? RTTT? CCSS? What true educator can support that testing to extinction? It baffles me why Obama/Duncan want to eliminate the public school systems when their objectives in every other area of life, especially health care, is anti individual freedom.

“Ladd and Fiske, then, are totally correct in saying that the privatization movement sees public goods as merely the sum of the individual goods arising from education. I say that is the way it should be in America. What are claimed as social goods lost by privatization are, in my view, really social “bads.” They are mainly accustoming citizens to acquiesce in state control of their lives. There’s been enough of that already.”

EduShyster, that merry prankster of edu-reform offers her predictions for the New Year.

She says 2013 will be the year of the edupreneur.
This is a new genus americanus, the ultimate result of turning the public education system into an emerging market.

2012 was a year in which supporters of public education–parents, educators and concerned citizens–won some huge victories against the privatization movement.

Let’s begin with the elections of 2012.

Reform idol Tony Bennett was booted out by the voters of Indiana, who elected veteran educator Glenda Ritz as State Superintendent of Education.

Idaho was a great victory for supporters of public education. Idaho voters decisively repealed the Luna laws, which would have committed the state to spend $180 million for laptops while imposing merit pay, crushing the unions and tying every educators’ evaluation to test scores.

Voters in Florida rejected an effort to amend the state constitution to permit vouchers.

Voters in Bridgeport, Connecticut, voted against the mayor’s effort to take control of their public schools by eliminating the elected board of education.

Voters in Santa Clara County, California, re-elected Anna Song, whose opponent outspent her by about 25-1. She was targeted for defeat by the California charter school lobby after she opposed a bid by Rocketship to open 20 new charters. Rocketship will get the charters but Anna Song proved that big money was not enough to beat a supporter of public education.

The big push for “parent trigger” laws ran into two stumbling blocks:

In Florida, Jeb Bush and Michelle Rhee put on a full-court press to persuade the state legislature to pass a law allowing parents to vote to hand their public school over to a charter operator. But they overlooked the parents of Florida! Every Florida parent group turned out in Tallahassee to oppose the “Parent Empowerment” bill. In reformese, when they talk “parent empowerment,” that means parents are about to lose their voice and their local neighborhood school. Florida PTAs, Fund Florida Now, Testing Is Not Teaching, 50th No More, and every other grassroots group spoke out against the “parent trigger.” A bloc of Republican state senators turned against the bill, and the bill died in the state senate on a tie vote of 20-20. It will be back this year, but so will Florida’s parents.

The billionaire libertarian Philip Anschutz, in league with billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch, released a film called “Won’t Back Down,” that was intended to teach the American public that the only way to save their children was to hand their public school over to a charter operator. The film was heavily promoted at NBC’s “Education Nation,” on the Ellen show, and at a “Teachers Rock” concert sponsored by CBS. Michelle Rhee sponsored free showings at both national political conventions, so that every Democrat and Republican could have a chance to see how important it is to turn public schools over to private management, whether for-profit or non-profit. But then Parents Across America sprung into action. They put out a fact sheet about who and what was behind the movie. A few of them actually demonstrated at the Democratic National Convention. When the film was released in late September, it was pegged as anti-teacher and anti-public education and anti-union. It got terrible reviews. It didn’t sell many tickets. It flopped. Within a month after its grand premiere, it had disappeared. The free market is not kind to idlers, even when the guy who produced the movie is one of the biggest theater owners in the nation.

The movement against high-stakes testing roared into high gear:

More than 80% of the local school boards in Texas passed resolutions opposing high-stakes testing. Prominent Texans like state board member Tom Ratliff spoke out against the misuse of tests.

Superintendent Joshua Starr of Montgomery County, Maryland, called for a three-year moratorium on high-stakes testing. He said that the schools were inundated with too many changes at the same time.

Superintendent Heath Morrison of Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, said that the national obsession with high-stakes testing had to stop. He said, “we can teach to the top, but we can’t test to the top.” Last spring, Morrison was chosen as Superintendent of the Year by the American Association of School Administrators.

Superintendent John Kuhn of the Perrin-Whitt Independent School District in Texas continues to be an eloquent spokesman for children.

The voucher program in Louisiana became an international embarrassment and its funding was declared unconstitutional:

Earlier this year, Governor Bobby Jindal pushed through sweeping voucher legislation for Louisiana that would give vouchers for more than half the children in the state to attend private and religious schools with money taken from the public school budget. Because several of the voucher schools are religious schools that teach creationism, the Louisiana plan was mocked by media around the world, who laughed at the idea that children would be taught that men and dinosaurs co-existed and that the Loch Ness monster is real, and other nonsense. Just weeks ago, a Louisiana judge struck down the funding of the vouchers, because the state constitution says the money is dedicated to elementary and secondary public schools. The language is clear. The state may not raid the public school’s minimum foundation budget to pay for vouchers.

Oh, and the anti-voucher vote in Florida continued a longstanding tradition: No state has ever voted to approve vouchers.

Local school boards continue to support their public schools with vigilance:

In addition to the many local school boards in Texas and elsewhere that have passed high-stakes testing resolutions, school boards have fought off other intrusions.

In North Carolina, the school boards won a battle to keep the for-profit virtual charter corporation K12 Inc. out of their state.

The Austin Independent School Board, after an election that brought in new members representing the community, severed its contract with the IDEA charter chain.

In Nashville, the Metro Nashville school board turned down Great Hearts Academy four times because Great Hearts wanted to locate their charter in a mainly white neighborhood and had inadequate plans for diversity. The board stood firm despite the fulminations of the governor, the legislature, and the state commissioner of education, who are so determined to open the way for Great Hearts that 1) Commissioner Kevin Huffman withheld $3.4 million of public funds from the children of Nashville to punish the school board for its refusal to follow his orders; and 2) the legislature plans to authorize a state commission to override the local school boards’ wishes. This accords with ALEC legislation.

Bad news for ALEC:

For years, ALEC has been under the radar. The shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida made the public aware of ALEC’s “Stand Your Ground” legislation, invoked by the man who killed the teen. Then the media starting paying attention to ALEC and discovered its agenda of privatization (see ALEC Exposed) and learned about the model laws written by ALEC for charter schools, vouchers, online charter schools, union-busting, uncertified teachers, and an array of other corporate-friendly legislation.

The Chicago Teachers Union went on strike and said, “Enough is enough!”

Teachers have watched in dismay as state after state has whittled away or hacked away their right to bargain collectively, their tenure rights, their academic freedom, and their pensions. They have seen state after state pass legislation requiring merit pay (even though it has never worked anywhere) and tying their evaluations and their careers to student test scores (even though research says that value-added assessment is inaccurate and unstable and punishes teachers who teach children with high needs).

Teachers and principals alike have watched in dismay as rightwing legislatures and governors have slashed spending for public schools while paying more for testing.

Educators have been appalled by cuts in basic services to students.

And the CTU said, “No more.”

CTU was not allowed to strike about anything that mattered, but they made clear in their words and deeds that they were striking for their students. They were striking to protest the lack of teachers of the arts, of librarians and social workers, and of basic resources for students. They were protesting overcrowded classes. They were protesting school closings.

CTU had the support of parents of Chicago’s students. They had the support of police and firefighters.

The national media never understood what was at stake, but almost every educator in America did.

And to educators, CTU were heroes. Every educator wished they too had one of those cool red CTU tee-shirts.

2012 was the beginning.

Teachers, principals, superintendents, local and state school boards are speaking up.

Parents and students are speaking up.

The friends of public education dominate social media.

We dominate Twitter and Facebook because we have millions of supporters.

The corporate reformers have millions to buy TV ads and to buy media outlets.

But they don’t own us.

And they are failing. Everything they advocate is failing.

That is why we are winning.

2012 is the beginning.

We will take back public education for the public, not for profit, not for private interests.

For the public.

Pro publica.

The New York Times had a front-page story yesterday about a non-profit corporation that runs halfway houses in New Jersey.

It may be non-profit, but the owner and his family are making millions.

Does this remind you of anything else you have read lately?

A reader writes in response to a post last night about Diana Senechal’s article on Big Ideas in education. I added that many of the Big Ideas today are driven by the profit motive, and Diana wrote to say that she did not make that point. I did. This reader shares his or her experience with the way profit changes education:

“Yes, your article did not emphasize how the profit motive has skewed what is valued in education today. I value Liberal Arts, but I’m glad Diane mentioned this, because it really needs to be stated and underscored, over and over again, since it’s not just Liberal Arts that are under-valued by today’s profit-driven “reformers”; teachers are not valued either.

“Teachers have no idea how bad it can get for them when profit drives education. Look to higher ed to see what’s been happening to teachers there:

“After teaching for decades (5 years at my current school), this week, I was given a contract indicating that, starting next month, I will be paid $200 per 16 week course. Yes, I am to be paid $12.50 per week. My contract also indicated that I will not be receiving this insulting, unlivable pay until the semester ends, after 4 months. This is a school that just went from being a non-profit to being a for-profit. No faculty members qualify for minimum wage or unemployment compensation either, because 100% of us were hired on a semester basis, so we’re not even really considered employees and we have no benefits or protections whatsoever.

“Profiteers have all kinds of “big ideas” up their sleeves which are intended to serve only their own benefit, and as long as the government allows it, they will continue to exploit whomever they can. So don’t think that being asked to teach for 16 weeks at the pay rate of $12.50 per week could never happen to you, because it just happened to hundreds of teachers at my school.”