Why Michael Bennett Should NOT Be the Democratic Candidate

By dianeravitch
August 6, 2019 //
15

Mitchell Robinson, professor of music education at Michigan State University, sends out a warning that Michael Bennett is pure Corporate Reformer. 

Robinson reminds us that Bennett has more in common with Secretary Betsy DeVos than he wants you to know.

Michael Bennet, US Senator from Colorado and presidential candidate, had what the pundits this morning are calling “a moment” at [the second] Democratic Debate on CNN. Let’s hope that moment ends immediately.

Ironically enough, Bennet’s big moment came as he waxed poetic about “America’s public schools”, a topic that has received a depressingly minuscule amount of attention. Because while Bennet can point to his experience as Superintendent of the Denver school system for 4 years, his record in that position could well serve as the trailer for a dystopian movie of the disastrous impact of the corporate education reform agenda on the public schools of one of America’s most vibrant urban centers.

In case you don’t know much about Bennet–and really, how could you?–here’s a little primer…

  • Like our current Secretary of Education, Sen. Bennet never attended a public school himself. He attended the posh St. Alban’s school as a child; “the kind of go-to prep program that serves a lot of DC’s political elite.”
  • Although he had no educational background in teaching, or experience in public schools, Bennet was appointed Superintendent of Denver’s schools from 2005-09, the position that launched his bid for US Senator. While in that position, Bennet was a huge charter school cheerleader
  • He was a proponent of “school co-location,” a practice in which charter schools are “located” in space within an existing public school building–and a practice that often creates damaging tensions in school communities.
  • Bennet also forced through a contentious teacher merit pay system that left veteran teachers feeling demeaned and devalued. This punishing strategy was drawn directly from the venture capitalist/investment manager playbook–which should come as no surprise given Bennet’s background as…you guessed it: a lawyer and investment manager. Bennet’s merit pay ploy also contributed to the lingering discontentment among Denver’s teaching force, leading to this year’s teacher strike in Denver.
  • Bennet also pursued an aggressive school closing campaign, with devastating results:

No decision was more controversial or fraught than the one to close Manual High School, a northeast Denver institution with a storied legacy that had struggled immensely in the preceding decade. Bennet was attacked for ignoring the community’s wishes and inadequately planning for what would happen to hundreds of displaced students, many of whom would never finish high school.

Bennet seems to have realized that his record as a pro-charter, anti-teacher corporate reformer may prove to become a drag on his candidacy for president, and has attempted to distance himself from the Trump/DeVos education agenda–such as it is–with a public statement criticizing the Secretary, calling her nomination “an insult to schoolchildren and their families, to teachers and principals, and to communities fighting to improve their public schools all across this country”.

Given the alignment of Bennet’s education policy positions with those of Ms. DeVos, this is an exceedingly narrow needle to try to thread:

  • both Bennet and DeVos are big supporters of charter schools, and enemies of teachers unions–Bennet was a disciple of hedge fund guru Phillip Anschutz, the founder of a billion dollar anti-education foundation and owner of the publishing company “behind the anti-teachers’ union movies ‘Won’t Back Down’ and ‘Waiting for ‘Superman’”–as a result, Denver now has more charter and “innovation” schools than traditional public schools
  • both Bennet and DeVos favor “school choice”, a policy that has been toxic in both DeVos’ home state of Michigan, and Bennet’s adopted state of Colorado
  • both Bennet and DeVos are ardent supporters of alternative certification programs, like Teach for America, that provide a “fast track” to the classroom for uncertified and unqualified applicants, and replace veteran teachers with short-term “edutourists”
  • both Bennet and DeVos are proponents of “portfolio school districts,” an approach to school organization and governance that’s proven to be a disaster in New Orleans and many other communities
  • both Bennet and DeVos have targeted teachers’ pension funds as a means of destabilizing school systems and hastening the glide path to privatization

Former Denver Board member Jeanne Kaplan started her own blog with a warning that Bennett and his successor Tom Boasberg had made minuscule progress academically, but had succeeded in inflicting maximum disruption on the children and public schools of Denver. Worse, Bennett engaged in risky financial investments that were damaging to the district’s finances.

She wrote:

Fifty seven charter schools (57), seventy five percent (75%) housed in taxpayer owned or leased facilities. Fifty two percent (52%) of taxpayer approved new schools money going to two Charter Management Organizations (CMOs). Forty percent (40%) of schools non-union. These are the outcomes Denver Public Schools Superintendent Tom Boasberg must be looking at when he repeatedly declares education reform is a success in Denver. He certainly can’t be looking at the academic outcomes.

My name is Jeannie Kaplan. I had the honor and privilege of serving on the Denver Public Schools Board of Education for 8 years, from 2005 through November 2013. Michael Bennet was superintendent, having been selected in June of 2005. Mr. Bennet served until January 2009 when he was selected to be the junior Senator from Colorado. His replacement was and continues to be Tom Boasberg, Michael’s childhood friend and former DPS Chief Operating Officer.

I believe today as I did when I first ran for the school board that public education is a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy. I am starting a blog to explore and hopefully shed some light on the complicated issues challenging public education today. I am going to be writing about my passion, public education, with a focus on Denver Public Schools. I will try to provide a voice for a side of this debate that is often overlooked by the main stream media.

Let us hope that Michael Bennett stays below 1% in the polls and fades away. He is not a spokesman for public schools. He is a spokesman for the corporate reformers who want to privatize public education.

 

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Democrats for Education Reform, Denver, Education Industry, Privatization

Trump Calls on Nation to Condemn “Racism, Bigotry, and White Supremacy.” I Therefore Condemn Donald Trump.

By dianeravitch
August 5, 2019 //
134

What an irony to hear Donald J. Trump calling on the nation to condemn “racism, bigotry, and white supremacy.”

No one has done more to inflame racism, to encourage bigots, and to bring White Supremacists into the mainstream than Trump.

No need to recite the evidence. We have all seen it, beginning in Charlottesville when he praised the “very fine people” among the White Supremacists.

Or to remember only days ago when he told four Congresswomen of color to “go back where they came from.”

Or when he referred to Mexicans as rapists and murderers.

Or, or, or.

We can add dozens more times when he let the racists and bigots know that it was safe to come out into the open.

I condemn racism, bigotry, and White Supremacy.

I condemn Donald Trump.

Trump has turned the American Dream into the American Nightmare, bringing all the swamp creatures to sun on the front lawn of the White House and to enjoy his hospitality in the West Wing.

With all my breath, with all my might, I condemn what he has done to our nation, how he has a made a mockery of our ideals, how he has allowed hatred and racism to become the face we present to the world.

World, I apologize. This is not America. We are better than this. This too shall pass, the sooner the better.

 

Categories Education Reform

In the Public Interest: Inside the LA Teachers’ Strike

By dianeravitch
August 5, 2019 //
16

 

The photograph below was taken during the UTLA strike last January. The guy in the center is famous rocker Stevie Van Zandt, who loves teachers and public schools and unions. Stevie is a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. He played in Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band.

Stevie is constantly giving back, and he gave back in Los Angeles, where he picketed in the rain. Stevie will be a featured speaker at the Network for Public Education national conference in Philadelphia, March 28-29, 2020. Be there!

Stevie made a great video to celebrate International Teachers Day. 

Jeremy Mohler of “In the Public Interest” writes:

 

 

 

Like many districts nationwide, Los Angeles’s public school system was “broke on purpose.”

It’s suffered through decades of underfunding and anti-government rhetoric—”bad teachers.” Despite being the world’s fifth largest economy, California is 41st in the nation in per pupil funding.

It’s also bore the brunt of the charter school industry’s rapid growth. Los Angeles Unified School District has more charter schools than any other district in the country and now spends nearly $600 million annually to prop up a competing, parallel sector of privately managed schools.

That’s why what the city’s teachers did earlier this year was so powerful.

As a new report from Reclaim Our Schools LA outlines, “The Los Angeles strike resulted in a stunning array of substantive victories well beyond the scope of a typical labor agreement.”

Not only did teachers win pay increases, but they also won more nurses, counselors, and librarians in schools; smaller class sizes; reductions in standardized testing; an end to random searches of students in some schools; and more.

If you’re wondering what democracy looks like in the age of Citizens United, voter suppression, and Trump, what’s being dubbed “bargaining for the common good” is a glimpse.

Read Building the Power to Reclaim Our Schools for the story of how teachers and the community organized and worked together to use government for the common good.

Thanks for reading,

Jeremy Mohler
Communications Director
In the Public Interest
Categories California, Funding, Los Angeles, Unions

Florida: Principal Doubles Salary When Public School Turns Charter

By dianeravitch
August 5, 2019 //
10

 

What a payoff!

A principal in Florida doubled his salary when his public schools converted to a charter, which is what the rightwing governor and legislator want to happen.

Meanwhile teachers In the state are raising money to pay for basic school supplies for their students.

Lincoln Memorial Academy principal Eddie Hundley, the subject of a federal investigation, earned more than twice the average salary of middle school principals in Manatee last year.

Former Lincoln Memorial Academy principal Eddie Hundley, who is currently the subject of a federal investigation into fraud, bribery and embezzlement, earned roughly $204,000 last year, according to Manatee County School District general counsel Mitch Teitelbaum.

Hundley’s salary nearly doubled overnight when Lincoln converted from a traditional district middle school to a charter on June 30, 2018. Before the conversion, school district officials say Hundley was earning $105,560, but as of July 1, 2018, his base pay increased to $174,990 plus a supplement of $2,450 per month.

“This may not be the entire compensation received by Mr. Hundley,” Teitelbaum said in an email.

Hundley’s salary had been a mystery, as school district officials have sought more details about Lincoln’s finances. The school was declared in “dire financial condition” in May. Lincoln was found to have missed roughly $60,000 in payments to the Florida Retirement System, and the city of Palmetto has threatened to turn off the school’s water twice due to unpaid bills…

Hundley’s base salary and monthly supplement, not including benefits, puts his earnings well above middle school principals in Manatee, who on average earned $83,200 in 2018-19, according to the school district.

However, Hundley’s salary it is not out of the realm for charter school principals in the district. In 2017 the Herald Tribune compiled salaries of the highest paid employee at all charter schools in Sarasota and Manatee. At that point, Manatee School for the Arts principal Bill Jones earned roughly $184,000. Fred Spence, the founder of Bradenton’s Team Success, earned $237,000 in 2014, the last year of salary data available before management of the school was handed over to his management firm. The highest paid employee at a charter school in Sarasota in 2017 was Vickie Marble at the Student Leadership Academy, at $143,175.

Local officials said the school’s administrative costs had tripled beyond what was expected..

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Florida, Funding, Privatization

Julian Vasquez Heilig: New Study Concludes That Charters Have a Segregation Problem

By dianeravitch
August 5, 2019 //
16

 

Julian Vasquez Heilig reports here on a new study about segregation and charter schools in which he is one of the authors. The other authors are Jameson Brewer and Yohuru Williams.

Here is an abstract of the study:

Abstract: We conduct descriptive and inferential analyses of publicly available Common Core of
Data (CCD) to examine segregation at the local, state, and national levels. Nationally, we find that
higher percentages of charter students of every race attend intensely segregated schools. The highest
levels of racial isolation are at the primary level for public and middle level for charters. We find
that double segregation by race and class is higher in charter schools. Charters are more likely to be
segregated, even when controlling for local ethnoracial demographics. A majority of states have at
least half of Blacks and a third of Latinx in intensely segregated charters. At the city level, we find
that higher percentages of urban charter students were attending intensely segregated schools.

Dr.Heilig writes:

We are honored today to release a new study entitled Choice without inclusion?: Comparing the intensity of racial segregation in charters and public schools at the local, state and national levels that examines segregation in the entire universe of US public and charter schools.

In its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 [1], the United States Supreme Court powerfully concluded that in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ had no place. Further, “separate educational facilities,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for a unanimous court “are inherently unequal.” It has been over sixty years since the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Brown to abolish the separate-but-equal legal doctrine and Jim Crow segregation by race. Yet, since that time, courts have allowed de factosegregation to flourish [2]and, as a result, schools in the United States are more segregated than they were at the time of the Brown decision [3].

The resegregation of the United States, in contravention of Brown, has occurred as a result of judicial retrenchment, but also due to other factors such as lax executive enforcement and White flight [4]. Not incidentally, during the past two decades, schools in the United States have become increasingly segregated by race and class. According to the national data, nowhere is the problem more acute than in the nation’s charter schools [5]. While public schools have generally acknowledged the problem and have usually agreed to remedies to address segregation [6], some charter supporters have sought to downplay the issue, emphasizing the need to provide greater choice to low income and minority students as a means of achieving an educational equity in outcomes regardless of the racial composition of the school [7]. In fact, some charter advocates have suggested that racial segregation within schools is acceptable if that comes as a natural by-product of parental choice [8].

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization, Segregation

Why I Like Steve Bullock as a Democratic Candidate

By dianeravitch
August 5, 2019 //
49

Steve Bullock, governor of Montana, entered the Democratic primaries late, and to most people he is a complete unknown.

At NPE Action, we have been watching Steve Bullock with admiration, because he has been a stand-up guy for public schools in his state.

He has been governor of the state since 2012.

He beat a pro-privatization billionaire in 2016. 

Montana is a red state. Bullock is a pro-public school Democrat.

His children attend public schools.

He graduated from Helena High School. His mother was a school board member; his father was a teacher and administrator.

Bullock has frozen tuition at state colleges for four years to keep college affordable.

He has expanded Medicaid, with bipartisan support.

Montana has two charter schools, and they are both run by school districts.

Bullock has said clearly that choice diverts money from public schools.

He is pro-union.

He vetoed a voucher bill (“Education Savings Account”).

In 2016, he ran against a pro-voucher, pro-charter candidate, and Bullock won. As he likes to point out, he won in a state that Trump won easily. He won by four points in a state where Trump won by 21 points.

Bullock connects with people.

He understands that Montana is a sprawling state that is largely rural. Its public schools are important to their communities. He doesn’t see any reason to have “choice” of charters or religious schools.

He has picked one of the most important issues in American politics–the malign influence of Big Money in elections–and is determined, if elected, to overturn Citizens United, which lets rich people buy elections.

I don’t know if he has much of a chance in the national elections, given the high profiles of other candidates, but I like his commonsense approach to issues, the way he translates them into terms that everyday people can understand.

And I like his support for students, public schools, and public colleges.

Maybe he will break through, or maybe he will be a good running mate.

I hope that he has a chance to talk about the need for strong public schools on a national platform.

Categories Education Reform

NPE Action Rates the Presidential Candidates

By dianeravitch
August 4, 2019 //
38

The Network for Public Education Action is grading the presidential candidates.

If you want to keep track, read here.

“For an explanation of why the candidates received the grades they did, click on their names to the left.”

Ratings may change as candidates express their views.

If you attend a town hall and learn more about a candidate’s views, let us know.

Contact Darcie Cimarusti, Research Associate, NPE Action at darciecimarusti@gmail.com

Categories Accountability, Education Reform, Networkfor Public Education Action Fund, NPE Action Fund

Vox: Andrew Yang Promised to Create 100,000 New Jobs; He Failed

By dianeravitch
August 4, 2019 //
31

Andrew Yang, now on the presidential candidates’ stage in the Democratic debates, made a bold promise: He would create 100,000 new jobs with startups, based on the model of Teach for America.

His program is called Venture for America. He failed.

So far, he has created 4,000 new jobs and still struggling.

This parallels TFA’s bold promise to “close the achievement gap” and change the trajectory of students’ lives, simply by placing a recent college graduate with five weeks of training in urban and rural classrooms for two years (in some cases, three).

The achievement gap on NAEP has not budged in the past decade. TFA has been at the job of closing it for 30 years.

Categories Teach for America

How to Buy a Gun in Fifteen Countries

By dianeravitch
August 4, 2019 //
33

This post originally appeared on March 3, 2018.

The United States has minimal requirements for buying a gun. Although some cities restrict gun ownership, guns are readily available in most states and at gun shows and on the Internet. A purchaser might buy a gun in less than an hour.

Other countries have established high barriers to gun ownership. It is possible to buy a gun but not easy.

Japan

1. Join a hunting or shooting club.

2. Take a firearm class and pass a written exam, which is held up to three times a year.

3. Get a doctor’s note saying you are mentally fit and do not have a history of drug abuse.

4. Apply for a permit to take firing training, which may take up to a month.

5. Describe in a police interview why you need a gun.

6. Pass a review of your criminal history, gun possession record, employment, involvement with organized crime groups, personal debt and relationships with friends, family and neighbors.

7. Apply for a gunpowder permit.

8. Take a one-day training class and pass a firing test.

9. Obtain a certificate from a gun dealer describing the gun you want.

10. Buy a gun safe and an ammunition locker that meet safety regulations.

11. Allow the police to inspect your gun storage.

12. Pass an additional background review.

13. Buy a gun.

Japan has the lowest rate of gun homicides in the world.

Australia

After the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, where a man methodically killed 35 random people and injured many more at a popular tourist site, Australia made it more difficult to get a gun. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right.

1. Join and regularly attend a hunting or shooting club, or document that you’re a collector.

2. Complete a course on firearm safety and operation, and pass a written test and practical assessment.

3. Arrange firearm storage that meets safety regulations.

4. Pass a review that considers criminal history, domestic violence, restraining orders and arrest history. Authorities may also interview your family and community members.

5. Apply for a permit to acquire a specific type of weapon.

6. Wait at least 28 days.

7. Buy the specific type of gun you received a permit for.

The article in the New York Times describes the gun laws in 13 other countries.

Those who mistakenly claim that the Second Amendment protects their unlimited right to buy any kind of gun ignore the fact that Congress banned assault weapons from 1994-2004. Before the ban was passed, it was endorsed by former Presidents Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter.

Categories Education Reform, Guns

Justice John Paul Stevens on Gun Control

By dianeravitch
August 4, 2019 //
12

I posted this originally on March 2, 2018, after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a series of essays about the Supreme Court and its treatment of important issues like gun control. The Washington Post excerpted one of them here, in 2014.

“Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.

“The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

“The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

“When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

“Organizations such as the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and mounted a vigorous campaign claiming that federal regulation of the use of firearms severely curtailed Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Five years after his retirement, during a 1991 appearance on “The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,” Burger himself remarked that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Got that? The conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger, appointed by President Richard Nixon, said that the NRA had perpetrated a fraud on the American people by twisting the words of the Second Amendment to deregulate military weapons and put then in the hands of civilians.

Justice Stevens added:

”In response to the massacre of grammar-school students at Sandy Hook Elementary School, some legislators have advocated stringent controls on the sale of assault weapons and more complete background checks on purchasers of firearms. It is important to note that nothing in either the Heller or the McDonald opinion poses any obstacle to the adoption of such preventive measures.”

 

Categories Education Reform, Guns
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »