The case of LA: why an elected school board doesn't necessarily mean more democracy

Here in NYC, as is well known,  since 2002 we have have a school board called the Panel for Educational Policy,  with a  super-majority of mayoral appointees that always rubberstamps any damaging school closing, destructive charter co-location or corrupt contract the mayor wants, even when hundreds or even thousands of parents, teachers, advocates and local elected officials speak out in opposition. 

Some of us have expressed a yearning for an elected school board as exists in the rest of New York state and the country, with the thought that it would yield more democracy and more fairly take into account the real needs of our children and the priorities of stakeholders.  But take a look at what is happening right now in Los Angeles for another perspective:

On March 5 there will be an election for three candidates for the LAUSD school board, which will probably determine whether their current Superintendent John Deasy remains in office.  Deasy was appointed straight from the Gates Foundation and predictably follows the corporate line: he supports the expansion of charters, the weakening of teacher tenure and basing teacher evaluation on student test scores; . Monica Garcia, the incumbent school board president, Kate Anderson, and Antonio Sanchez all support the renewal of Deasy’s contract, and are running under the slate of the Coalition for School Reform.   

Kate Anderson is campaigning to unseat incumbent Steve Zimmer, a former teacher and TFAer, who is an independent thinker and not a rubberstamp for Deasy. Despite the fact that individual contributions are apparently limited to $1000 per person, the pro-Deasy candidates have raised many times their opponents in donations from wealthy hedge-funders, Hollywood producers and the like; with Garcia outraising her opponents more than 10-1, and the other two more than 3-1.

Moreover, "independent expenditures" for these three candidates has gone through the roof with nearly $3 million raised through February 16.  Among the biggest donors are Mayor Bloomberg  ($1 million), Eli Broad and Michelle Rhee's StudentsFirst (each $250K), Reed Hastings of Netflix, Steve Jobs’ widow Laurene Powell, entertainment executive Casey Wasserman, investors Marc and Jane Nathanson, (each $100K), film producers Jeffrey Katzenberg and Frank Marshall (both $50K), and Joel Klein, now working for Rupert Murdoch ($25K). These independent expenditures include deceptive attack mailers, an expensive “ground game” and plenty of TV ads and glossy flyers. (Anyone who has lived in NYC through the last three mayoral elections knows the queasy experience of opening up your mailbox, stuffed with multiple huge mailers paid for by the Bloomberg campaign, touting his great record and/or attacking his opponents.)

There also seems to be a lot of shady and unethical politicking going on in Los Angeles. The LA Fund for Public Education is a charitable non-profit, a 501C3 started in 2011 by Superintendent Deasy, apparently modeled after NYC’s Fund for Public Schools, founded by Joel Klein.  The LA Fund paid for several billboards featuring Garcia as a supporter of the arts in January and February of this year, just a few weeks before the election, until angry protests made them take the billboards down.  As a 501C3, this organization is absolutely prohibited from any partisan political activity. 

(Some of us may recall how the NYC Fund for Public Schools ran expensive campaigns in 2008-9, with million dollar donations from the Broad, Gates, and Robertson foundations,including television, radio, and subway ads touting the great “progress” made by the schools under Bloomberg, with the tagline “keep it going”.  These took place  during the months leading up to the vote over whether mayoral control would be renewed, and whether Mayor Bloomberg would be re-elected for a third term.)

In addition, the United Way of LA, another 501C3, is holding an “Education Summit” on February 27, with a panel featuring Superintendent Deasy, Casey Wasserman, Eli Broad and school board president and incumbent Monica Garcia, just one week before the election. Why is this questionable?

Again, if an organization is a 501C3 and receives tax-deductible donations, it is strictly prohibited from holding events promoting one candidate for office so close to an election without inviting his or her rivals.  Oh yes, in the morning there is a panel featuring “The Education Mayors [sic]”: Cory Booker, Mayor of Newark, Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago and Antonio Villaraigosa, current but term-limited Mayor of Los Angeles, privatizers all.  (United Way also was involved in the promotion, parent outreach, and screenings of the charter porn film, Waiting for Superman, funded by Gates Foundation and others.)

On February 14, the United Way held a school board candidate forum, right after news of the Bloomberg $1 million donation broke, in which Monica Garcia and other candidates were present. [Video here.] Among the questions asked: “What would you do if you were head of the UTLA (the LA teachers union), which is a rather strange question considering the candidates were running for the school board instead.  Also, according to the LA Times,

“…organizers did not choose to ask a question about Bloomberg’s largesse or the fund to which he donated, which is called the Coalition for School Reform. But moderator Marqueece Harris-Dawson did ask candidates to address money given by the teachers union, United Teachers Los Angeles, which also is expected to spend big in the campaign.”

(Union officials have said they can’t match the coalition’s resources and will compensate instead by sending teachers out into the field.)

“We don’t have millions,” asserted Diaz, referring to the union. “We are broke.” Then he went back on the offensive: “Look at what happened with the New York mayor…That’s a red flag. Corporations are not citizens, but they are taking control of our public schools…We need money in the schools, not the campaigns.”

And what about that Bloomberg hefty donation?  On the day the contribution was announced,  the LA Times quoted Dan Schnur's commentary:

 "Michael Bloomberg threw down the gauntlet today," said Dan Schnur, director of the Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. "He's obviously very serious about changing education in America, and Los Angeles is now ground zero for that effort." He added: "This is a game changer."

Game changer, huh?  Dan Schnur was also quoted in an article a few days later in the LA Daily News this time, about the potential impact of the Bloomberg donation, and he framed the election as a fight between the union and the “reformers”, who if they won, would make LA a “leader on education reform”:

"This is not the first time that reformers and the unions have gone head to head, but the stakes have never been this high," said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. "This fight isn't about John Deasy the person, but what he represents - an aggressive approach to reform that raises a lot of very high passions on both sides of the debate.

"These elections represent what it's going to take to make LA's public schools better….LA has not historically been a leader on education reform but that could very well be about to change," he said.

Who is Dan Schnur, besides the director of an Institute at USC and a former adviser to Sen. John McKean? 

He’s also the brother of Jon Schnur, a prominent corporate reformer.  Jon is the founder of New Leaders of New Schools, currently head of American Achieves and an adviser to Bloomberg on how to spend his personal fortune.  

Unfortunately, neither of these articles mentioned that connection when quoting Dan Schnur as a supposed independent expert on the impact of the million dollar donation.  Given that his brother probably advised Bloomberg to give the contribution to the LA school board race in the first place, it might be considered relevant to how independent and objective his brother’s views should be considered, that the donation is a “game changer” that will determine whether Los Angeles will be a “leader on education reform.”

Lesson: even an elected school board is not necessarily going to give us more accountability and democracy here in NYC, unless there are strict limits on contributions, restrictions on independent expenditures, and restraints imposed on foundations and non-profits from influencing the outcome.  The media must also do their job and report the underlying connections between all these forces. And no one should be surprised if Bloomberg and his wealthy allies in the corporate reform movement use the same sort of tactics during the NYC mayoral elections taking place later this year.

Why DOE's claim to be responding to "parent choice" is a myth; the fight for a Progressive Middle School in District 4

The following is by Raven Snook, a parent in District 4.  WhileDOE often claims to be responding to "parent choice" they are really responding to the choice of privatizers, in their effort to expand charters as quickly as possible and give them space inside public school buildings, even when they already have leased alternatives, as in the example below.  Also whether the DOE thinks there is "space" in a school building often depends on who is asking for it, public school parents or charter operators. Here's a flyer with more information about the hearing on Feb. 27 and the vote by the PEP on March 11; you can also click on the Eventbrite invitation.

My 7-year-old attends Central Park East II, one of two progressive elementary schools in East Harlem founded by famed educator Deborah Meier almost 40 years ago. Both CPEI and II have been trying to expand to a combined middle school for the past four years, and in 2012 the Department of Education told us the only thing standing in our way was lack of space in District 4. Cut to today: The DOE is giving away available space in the Jackie Robinson Educational Complex -- the same building that houses CPEI -- to the East Harlem Scholars Academy I and II charter schools.

You can read all about our struggle in the press and on our Facebook page, but I really want to put a personal face on our efforts. This isn’t about public school versus charter school. It’s about giving parents a choice.

When my daughter originally lotteried into pre-K at Central Park East II, I was thrilled. As a District 4 resident, I had toured many local schools and didn’t like most of my options. The “successful” elementary schools in District 4 tended to be strict, test-oriented institutions (both regular public schools and charters) where kids wore uniforms, were disciplined harshly and received little arts education -- everything I knew I didn’t want for my high-spirited daughter.

Four years later, she’s in second grade and thriving at CPEII. She loves to read, write and do math, she’s learning violin, and she’s studying NYC and birds. She never complains about going to school because to her it’s fun. There are no traditional tests or grades although there are certainly benchmarks, goals and frequent student evaluations, just without a number, letter or judgment attached.

The Department of Education constantly talks about how parents should have choices, and I agree. I’m glad the families who chose East Harlem Scholars Academy are happy. And I hope they respect the fact that I have opted for a progressive education for my child, and I don’t want it to end at fifth grade.

There are many reasons the CPE community believes we should get the space in the Jackie Robinson Educational Complex:

-          CPE has a lauded almost 40-year history in the Harlem community.

-          District 4 has no progressive middle school options, and very few high-performing middle schools at all.

-          East Harlem Scholars Academy already has another building. The organization is leasing the defunct St. Lucy's Catholic School on East 104th Street for its after-school program, and the building could accommodate at least one of its schools, too. 

In fact, EHSA even had students from Parsons do mockups showing how the space could be reconfigured to accommodate the school. 

Next Wednesday, February 27 at 6pm, there is a hearing about the EHSA co-location in the Jackie Robinson Educational Complex. I plan to be there with my daughter and the rest of the CPE community. If you also value choice in education, I hope you’ll join us. The attached flyer has all of the information. You can also sign our online petition and add your thoughts.  -- Raven Snook

video: the Gates-funded threat to student privacy

A few weeks ago I was interviewed by Mary Conway-Spiegel of the Partnership for Student Advocacy about the unprecedented threat to student privacy represented by the Gates-funded Shared Learning Collaborative, which is collecting, storing and distributing to commercial software developers the confidential, personally identifiable data of public school students in nine states  (so far). Since this interview was filmed, the SLC has spun off into a separate corporation called inBloom Inc.

For more on this highly controversial project, see this post by Audrey Watters, a letter to the Massachusetts board of education from parent and advocacy groups in that state, including the ACLU, and this fact sheet for parents.  Much thanks to the PSA for this video.

A Guide to Corporate Education "reform"

Lots of parents are confused by the large number of education organizations that have sprouted up like weeds in recent years, many of which have “Children” or “Students” in the title, and claim to be working in the interests of children but actually pursuing the free-market ideology of privatizers, hedge funders and billionaires. 

Yesterday on Diane Ravitch’s blog, I wrote  how one could identify these astroturf groups by their rhetoric and often contradictory positions; along with linking to a spreadsheet that lists the names of these organizations, their boards and funders. 

I hope this will be a helpful tool for parents, advocates and others who are trying to make out who is who in the battle to preserve and strengthen our public schools.  Please check it out and if you have any suggestions for additions or subtractions, email us at info@classsizematters.org;  as I intend to keep improving it.  thanks!

Popular backlash against high stakes testing grows stronger, but the Senate doesn't appear to notice (with video)

See the video below of the rally on Wednesday of the Seattle Garfield high school teacher boycott of the MAP test, with teachers, parents and the local NAACP speaking up about the waste of time and money and invalid teacher evaluation metrics that result.  They also read statements of support from other groups around the nation. (Many of them are posted here)  Here are just a sample of stories  from the past week, thanks to Monty Neill of FairTest.

Has Testing Reached a Tipping Point?
USA Today on Growing National Resistance
Seattle Teachers Lead Day of Action Against Standardized Tests
New Wave of Teacher Unionism Focuses on Standardized Testing 
Providence [RI] Students' Strong Op Ed Opposing High-Stakes Testing
Portland Students Push Standardized Test Boycott
Chicago Parents' Petition Seeks Limits on Testing
New York Principals Continue Campaign Against High-Stakes Testing Misuse
Key Texas Legislator Proposes Standardized Exam Requirement Rollback
State, Local Officials Call for "No Child Left Behind" Overhaul
Opposition to Standardized Testing & Common Core Assessments Grows Across Political Spectrum
If Testing Makes for Better Education, Why Are Obama Girls in a School thatDisagrees?
E-mails Link Bush Foundation with Corporations and State Officials in Pushing Test-Driven "Reform"
Testing Insanity Kills the Joy of Teaching and Learning
 
Yet on Thursday, the very next day, the Senate held hearings on the US Dept of Education's NCLB "waivers"; with all five witnesses, including Arne Duncan, uncritically supporting the corporate reform agenda of test-based accountability; with no mention of the grassroots backlash that is growing in strength each day.  Though Duncan claims the NCLB waivers are more "flexible" in many ways they are even worse than NCLB by requiring teacher evaluation be linked to test scores.  (See video of the hearings and links to the testimonies.)

The only skeptics were Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) and Sen. Pat Roberts (KS), who  mostly focused on how the "Race to the Top" competitive grant program granted funds only to 11 states and DC, and discriminated against small and rural states like theirs without vast bureaucracies able to complete the grant proposals. Roberts also mentioned the briefly the importance of local control rather than top-down heavy hand of the feds. Sen. Rand Paul (KT) pointed out there is a growing coalition of the left and the right against federal mandates, but then went into a paean for vouchers.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN) argued against the notion that the federal government should be so prescriptive, when NY State Education  Commissioner King urged the federal government to absolutely require that teacher evaluation be linked to student /achievement  (which they have done already through the waivers) .  "Adults must be held accountable for student learning and outcomes." [You see he as well as other corporate reformers use these words interchangeably and reduce student performance/achievement/learning/outcomes with test scores.]

"Why do you need me to come from Tennessee to tell you what to do? Can't you do it on your own?"  gently scoffed Sen. Alexander, who needled him by mentioning Bloomberg's disdain for the teacher evaluation systems that New York state had agreed to.  But not one of the Senators present actually confronted how test scores are an unreliable, unfair and invalid way to measure teacher quality, and how all over the country, parents and teachers are rejecting the  increasingly oppressive effect of testing on our schools.

The women on the committee were nowhere to be found; neither Patti Murray (WA), now the two new appointees:  Elizabeth Warren (MA) and Tammy Baldwin (WI).  Particularly disappointing was the performance of Sen. Al Franken (MI), who praised computer-adaptive tests, like the MAP tests that the Garfield teachers are boycotting.

In response,  Duncan said "There are schools in NYC where every single day teachers get real life feedback on how much their students learned; the goal of teachers is not to teach but to have students learn. In NYC, every single day, using technology, teachers understand what their children learned." 

Does anyone know what he is talking about?  The School of One program, that has had disappointing results and was dropped by two out of the three schools that tried it?  Once again, the Congress shows how they are trapped in a bubble, isolated from reality, their constituents and the rising popular revulsion against these damaging policies.

If they had been more in tune with what is happening in their communities, they would have invited the Montgomery Co. Superintendent Starr, who has called for a three year moratorium on high stakes testing, the Portland Oregon students who are boycotting their state tests, or the Seattle Garfield teachers and parents, speaking out below.