John King uses WSJ to threaten NYC on charter rent: are Amplify losses so great Rupert can't afford to pay fact-checkers anymore?

Today the Wall St. Journal carried one of the worst articles I have ever read, carrying baseless threats by the State Education Department that they are considering cutting school construction aid to NYC if the de Blasio charges charter schools rent.  

It would be an outrageous abuse of power to penalize NYC for failing to submit to the Commissioner's personal privatization agenda.  Remember that before being appointed to SED, King used to run a chain of charters called Uncommon charters, that benefit from free space in DOE buildings. The reporter failed to mention that fact.

Not only would cutting school construction aid be illegal-- as the state capital funding reimbursement formula is written into law -- but essentially the Commissioner would be punishing NYC for complying with state law.

Yet the reporter, Lisa Fleisher,  misstated the law, by erroneously writing that "school districts "may" contract with charter schools "at cost."

Section 2853 of state education law clearly says that if districts choose to contract with charters for space and services, "any such contract shall provide such services or facilities at cost.”

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/education/EDN02853_2853.html

This is a huge legal difference between “may” and “shall" of course. 

Perhaps Rupert Murdoch is losing so much money with Amplify he can't afford fact-checkers at the WSJ anymore. 

The reporter also omitted mentioning that as part of their applications to be authorized, charters have to submit a financial plan that covers rent. 

I have written to the Wall St. Journal, asking them to retract this egregious error; perhaps others could too at wsjcontact@wsj.com  Let's see if they respond.  Below is the letter Arthur Schwartz of Advocates for Justice sent John King today.

February 7, 2014

Commissioner John King

New York State Education Department

89 Washington Avenue

Albany, New York 12234

                                Re:         Penalizing NYC if It Charges Rent to Charter Schools

Dear Commissioner King:

                We are counsel to petitioners in two lawsuits which challenge the current policy of the NYC Department of Education not to charge rent to charter schools co-located in NYC public school buildings.  Both suits, one titled NYC Parents Union v. NYC Board of Education and the second titled Leticia James, et al. v. NYC Board of Education, are based on Section 2853 of the Education Law, which clearly says that if districts choose to contract with charters for space and services, “any such contract shall provide such services and facilities at cost.”

                We have always read this statute as excusing school districts from the requirements of Education Law § 403-a, which requires that rentals not be less than “fair market rental value.”  “At cost,” however, does not mean “for free,” and NYC’s Independent Budget Office has calculated a “cost,” for the space allocated to co-located charter schools, of more than $2,000 per student.  This sum, we have contended, is an unlawful subsidization of charter schools that co-locate (money not given to charter schools that rent).

                There is an article in the Wall Street Journal today that reports that the New York State Education Department is “studying how the pledge [by Mayor De Blasio] to charge rent [to charters] could affect the amount of funding the City receives for facilities.”

                We are dismayed to hear this.  It is our understanding that the State reimbursement rate for City spending on school construction is set in law and cannot be abrogated because of the policy preferences of the State Education Department.

                Moreover, the Wall Street Journal reporter misstates the State law.  The law does not say that “school districts may contract with charter schools ‘at cost’”; it says “shall.”  We fear that the reporter got this version of the law from your office.

                The article quotes your office as being concerned about the City “making a profit” by charging rent to charters.  Charging rent at cost does not cause a district to “make a profit,” nor has a school district charging market rent for space (far more than “cost”) ever resulted in a penalty.  In fact, under Section 403-1, your office penalizes districts that fail to rent space at market rates.  See Appeal of Robert A. Forrest, No. 14501 (July 15, 2013, aff’d ___ Misc. 3d ____ (Sup. Ct. Albany County, January 2014); Ross v. Wilson, 308 N.Y. 605; Yeshiva of Spring Valley, Inc. v. Board of Education of East Ramapo Central School District, 132 A.D.2d 27.

                We wish to know whether the discussions reported in the Journal are truly taking place, and what possible legal basis the Commissioner could have for withholding state aid to a district charging rent to a charter “at cost.”  Such a move could only lead to unpleasant litigation.

                                                                                                                Very truly yours,

                                                                                                                Arthur Z. Schwartz

AZS:dr

cc:           Hon. Bill De Blasio
                Richard Trautwein, General Counsel, State Education Department

                Hon. Leticia James

                Hon. Melissa Mark-Viverito

                Leonie Haimson

                Jonathan Westin

                Mona Davids

Parents in Western NYS outraged about testing and confidential data sharing

An excellent news story by WIVB TV news in Western New York State that captures the parent outrage at the NY State Education Department concerning the increase in testing and student data sharing, leading to a growing opt out movement.

I strongly recommend you watch the whole thing; the section on the state's plan to share confidential student data with inBloom Inc. and private vendors is at about 6 minutes in; this part is transcribed under the screen.  For the entire transcript, you can go to the WBEZ website here.

Parents take stand against standardized tests

Parents also fear their children's private information is no longer private.

New York is one of five states providing personal information about its students to an electronic database - including names; addresses; race; ethnicity; disabilities; parent contact information; dates of absences, out-of-school suspensions, grades; and State standardized test scores.

The database was built by a company owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, with money from the Gates Foundation. It's run by a new non-profit, inBloom Inc., and third parties can access all the information it contains.

According to a report by The Washington Post , the U.S. Department of Education is being sued for promoting regulations that allow databases like inBloom's.

State Ed. and inBloom claim this database "mak[es] it easier [for teachers] to find learning materials that match each student's" needs.


However, state lawmakers are so concerned, there are bills in the Assembly and Senate that would make it illegal to release personal information about students to third parties, unless parents give consent.

"The fact that we have to have a law that says you can't release personal information about children is shocking, not that it's the other way around," [parent Shirley] Verrico says.

"Won't Back Down" a "loss leader" for the privateers?

See Diane Ravitch’s blog today about the fact that the anti-teacher, anti-public school film “Won’t Back Down” continues to tank.  The movie premiered Sept. 28, and had the worst opening of any film in thirty years opening “wide” (2500 screens), despite shameless promotion by CBS (remember their “Teachers Rock” concert show which featured the film?) and NBC’s Education Nation.

"Won't Back Down" revenues after 21 days

Yet on Thursday the film averaged $39 per day per screen.

The movie’s producer Philip Anschutz and distributor Rupert Murdoch have likely lost millions keeping this critical and financial flop in the theaters this long, helped by the fact that Anschutz also owns the Regal Cinemas theater chain, which was  offering two tickets for one to see the movie.  Last weekend, Murdoch was still buying half page ads in national papers, including the NY Times, featuring rave “reviews” of the film, that were actually drawn from Wall Street Journal and NY Post editorials (papers he owns), proclaiming that the film deserved as Oscar on the basis of its attack on the teacher unions.

For both of these privateers, their apparent desire to dismantle the public schools apparently won over their greed.

Will they manage to keep the film going nationally for another week?  In NYC, starting Monday the only theater that will still be showing the movie is in Glendale Queens; offering discounted tickets at 5:40 PM.

As Diane Ravitch points out, however, the US Chamber of Commerce along with other corporate reform and astroturf groups are holding free screenings of the film nationwide, to aid in their privatization campaign as part of a nationwide tour called “breaking the monopoly of mediocrity."

Speaking of monopolies, Murdoch is set to expand his control of the mainstream media and is in negotiations to buy up the LA Times and Chicago Tribune to further grow his mega-empire.   As we know too well, he has expanded into “education technology” products in a division run by Joel Klein, now renamed “Amplify.” 

Klein has expressed outrage that he and the division he runs for Murdoch are solely motivated by profit.  To some extent the marketing and continued promotion of this film might support his claim, which has been a money loser at least in the short run. 

Murdoch, Anschutz and the cadre of privateers they represent are focused on the long-term goal of putting public schools and educational services into corporate hands; arguing that this will somehow improve outcomes for kids.

 Of course, to the extent they achieve the privatization of the public schools, the more potential profits they are likely to reap in the long run.  In this regard, the film “Won’t Back Down” represents a “loss leader,” defined by Wikipedia as follows: “an item is offered for sale at a reduced price and is intended to "lead" to the subsequent sale of other items, the sales of which will be made in greater numbers, or greater profits, or both.”

Critics and audiences agree: "Won't Back Down" a tremendous flop

FINAL REVISED UPDATE: with the complete weekend  box-office figures now available, it is now clear that the film  had the WORST opening for ANY film in wide release (2500+ theaters) in at least thirty years, or since data is available.

 UPDATE:  "Won't Back Down" had the second worst opening weekend of any film in wide release (2500 screens or more) since 1982.  The only worry is whether the right-wing producer, Philip Anschutz, will keep it in the theaters since he also owns the largest movie chain in the nation. And will Murdoch, the distributor, keep financing free screenings and claim them as tax-deductible contributions, to be able to offset some of his losses?  Anyone who has a thought on this, please leave a comment below.

 The reviews are out, the box office returns have been counted and it's clear that the pro-charter propaganda film "Won't Back Down" is a huge critical and commercial flop.

All the advance screenings sponsored by astroturf corp reform groups and the film's distributor, Rupert Murdoch, the big push by CBS and Walmart, the promotion by NBC's Education Nation, the multi-million dollar advertising campaign financed by right-wing producer Philip Anschutz, and Students First sending in their staffers to write glowing reviews didn't bring people into the theaters.  One assessment says it is likely to be one of the worst openings for a film ever, with an estimated gross of only $82 per screening in its first weekend.

Many of the critics' reviews mentioned  the obvious political motives behind the film as part of an orchestrated campaign to blame all the ills of our schools on teachers unions and to privatize our public schools through the use of a "Parent Trigger."  For once reality seemed to penetrate the well-financed PR fog surrounding these issues.  Check out also this excellent radio show on the  the deceptive "Parent Trigger" -- or as some call it, "the parent tricker" --  including interviews with several parent activists, including me.  The most interesting is perhaps the parent from Adelanto CA, who describes how the staffers from the astroturf organization Parent Revolution went in and told parents they were signing petitions for cleaner bathrooms rather than conversion to a charter school.

The truth is that most parents do not want to close their schools or turn them over to private corporations, where parents are apt to have even less voice and their children fewer rights. For more on what parents really want, check out my piece in Friday's SchoolBook, Parents Want Options Beyond a Trigger.

Regents agree to give NY student data to limited corporation run by Gates and operated by Murdoch's Wireless Gen

This week, the Wall St Journal reported that the NY Board of Regents approved the state's sharing of student and teacher information with a new national data base, to be funded by the Gates  Foundation, and designed by News Corp's Wireless Generation.

All this confidential student and teacher data will be held by a private limited corporation, called the Shared Learning Collaborative LLC, with even less accountability,  which in July was awarded $76.5 million   by the Gates Foundation, to be spent over 7 months.  According to an earlier NYT story,  $44 million of this funding will go straight into the pockets of Wireless Generation, owned by Murdoch's News Corp and run by Joel Klein.

The Regents approved this project, despite the NY State Comptroller’s veto this summer of the State Education Department’s proposed no-bid contract to Wireless to build a state-wide data system, apparently because the state is not paying money to participate.  According to sources who were present, while several Regents expressed concerns, Betty Rosa of the Bronx was the only member to abstain.  The others apparently thought that even though the Comptroller-- and the public as well—had opposed this contract in large part because of the privacy issue and the involvement of Murdoch’s company,  which is still embroiled in a major phone-hacking scandal in the UK, these issues were not important enough to ask for more information or to delay the state from going forward with the deal.

Here is what SED writes, in explanation of their intent to share this confidential data: 

The cost of the development of the SLC will be the responsibility of the SLC, not New York State. Consistent with the Comptroller's concerns regarding Wireless Generation, no New York State funds will be paid directly or indirectly to Wireless Generation or any of its subsidiaries for the development of these SLC services. … As mentioned above, each state and school/district will retain sole ownership of its data. Only anonymous data will be used for SLC system development. As in any system development project, a limited number of authorized vendors will need to access actual educational data for system operation and improvements.

Including Wireless, one must assume. But this is not all. Here is more from the SED document: 

The Shared Learning Collaborative (SLC) is a consortium of states organized to help increase the benefits and long-term sustainability of data, curriculum, and instructional improvement initiatives. The SLC is facilitated by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and has received initial funding from the Carnegie Corporation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Participating states include Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Massachusetts.

 A primary purpose of the SLC is to help promote the efficient expenditure of taxpayer funds by coordinating the efforts of multiple states to provide for the common needs of all participating states, including shared infrastructure and services that integrate, deliver, and display educational data and curriculum resources for educators, students, and families. Legally binding agreements will ensure that each state’s data remain separate and distinct from the data of all other states…”

Along with  Wireless, some of the other companies involved will be two consulting companies: Alvarez and Marsal, who were behind the disastrous reorganization of NYC school bus routes in the winter of 2007, and McKinsey, which led the first reorganization of Children’s First in 2003, which included dissolving the district structure (contrary to law) and totally writing off parent input.

Here is an excerpt from a Gates’ fact sheet about this project:

“In addition to making instructional data more manageable and useful, this open-license technology, provisionally called the Shared Learning Infrastructure (SLI), will also support a large market for vendors of learning materials and application developers to deliver content and tools that meet the Common Core State Standards and are interoperable with each other and the most popular student information systems.”

In other words, companies will be making more money off our kids’ test scores. 

Meanwhile, it is not reassuring that the Gates document says that “the long-term governance model” of this national data base “is still in development.” 

They add a standard disclaimer, that “Designing protections for student privacy will be addressed throughout the development of the system, and data access and usage models will be designed to support compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and other privacy laws” without any assurances of how this will be achieved.

SED adds:

The SLC is making plans for its long-term governance, including the protection of data privacy and security; the development of a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization structure; and the articulation of a business model for long-term fiscal sustainability. This work will be guided by participating states and informed by input from a panel of expert advisors, including Cheryl Vedoe, President and CEO of Apex Learning; David Riley, President of the Alembic Foundation and an open source technology expert; Dr. Michael Lomax, President and CEO of the United Negro College Fund; Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers; Michael Horn, Co-founder and Executive Director for Education at Innosight Institute; and Andrew Rotherham, Co-founder and Partner of Bellwether Education Partners.

I wonder how many of those organizations receive funding from Gates. 

Where are the independent experts on privacy, and even more importantly, the input of parents, who really should be allowed to opt out of this national database? 

One small win for humankind: Comptroller rejected $27 M no bid Wireless contract

One small but significant victory:  public outrage has managed to stop the state contract with Wireless Generation, owned by Rupert Murdoch and run by Joel Klein.   

As reported in today's Daily News, State Comptroller Di Napoli rejected the egregious $27 million contract that the NY State Education Department  wanted to award the company, to build a statewide data system modeled after the highly deficient city system known as ARIS.  

We were the first to post a petition to Di Napoli, the Regents, and the feds, after the Daily News broke the story, and many other petitions and letters to the Comptroller followed.

For some of the reasons this contract should have been rejected see here.

If you would like to thank Comptroller Di Napoli, you can send an email to: contactus@osc.state.ny.us

Keep safe everyone on the East Coast, from Hurricane Irene, but savor this win for accountability and for someone who dared to say NO to educrats , apparently intent on wasting taxpayer money and reward their friends and cronies with no-bid contracts. These wins have been few and far between in recent years.