Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
In recent years, we have heard and read a lot about the failure of public schools in the United States. “Our schools are failing” has almost become a mantra with members of the media, many of our politicians, and the advocates of school reform. I have seen few people who have questioned the assertions made by the media, elected officials, and school reformers that schools in this country are not adequately educating our youth and that our educational system is a total and abject failure.
Many of those who criticize our public education system offer charter schools and the privatization of public schools as solutions to the “education problem” in this country.
I’m a retired public school educator. I have known and am friends with many current and former public school teachers. I know that there are many fine classroom practitioners working in our public schools today…and many excellent schools where our children receive a quality education. I am aware that there are also many schools where children may not be receiving the highest quality education. (What often go unmentioned in the media are the real reasons—including poverty—why some schools in this country may be failing.)
One problem with the “our schools are failing” mantra—as I see it—is that all our schools are lumped together in one basket labeled “failing.” How did this come to be? Do we Americans really believe that NO public schools in this country provide their students with an adequate education? Do we believe that all schools need to be reformed? If not, do we believe that even the schools which are actually doing an estimable job of educating their students need to be reformed?
I think it is time we start taking a good look at the individuals and organizations that are behind the push to establish thousands of charter schools and to use taxpayer money to fund private and religious schools as the means of raising the quality of education in this country.
ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)
Last May, education historian Diane Ravitch wrote the following about one group that has been driving the school reform movement:
Since the 2010 elections, when Republicans took control of many states, there has been an explosion of legislation advancing privatization of public schools and stripping teachers of job protections and collective bargaining rights. Even some Democratic governors, seeing the strong rightward drift of our politics, have jumped on the right-wing bandwagon, seeking to remove any protection for academic freedom from public school teachers.
This outburst of anti-public school, anti-teacher legislation is no accident. It is the work of a shadowy group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. Founded in 1973, ALEC is an organization of nearly 2,000 conservative state legislators. Its hallmark is promotion of privatization and corporate interests in every sphere, not only education, but healthcare, the environment, the economy, voting laws, public safety, etc. It drafts model legislation that conservative legislators take back to their states and introduce as their own “reform” ideas. ALEC is the guiding force behind state-level efforts to privatize public education and to turn teachers into at-will employees who may be fired for any reason. The ALEC agenda is today the “reform” agenda for education.
Ravitch continued:
A recent article in the Newark Star-Ledger showed how closely New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s “reform” legislation is modeled on ALEC’s work in education. Wherever you see states expanding vouchers, charters, and other forms of privatization, wherever you see states lowering standards for entry into the teaching profession, wherever you see states opening up new opportunities for profit-making entities, wherever you see the expansion of for-profit online charter schools, you are likely to find legislation that echoes the ALEC model.
ALEC has been leading the privatization movement for nearly 40 years, but the only thing new is the attention it is getting, and the fact that many of its ideas are now being enacted. Just last week, the Michigan House of Representatives expanded the number of cyber charters that may operate in the state, even though the academic results for such online schools are dismal.
ALEC Exposed provides a wealth of information about how—through ALEC—“corporations, ideologues, and their politician allies voted to spend public tax dollars to subsidize private K-12 education and attack professional teachers and teachers’ unions…” (You can find the information in Privatizing Public Education, Higher Ed Policy, and Teachers–the ALEC report prepared by The Center for American Democracy.)
Michelle Rhee and StudentsFirst
In addition to ALEC, there is another organization called StudentsFirst that has been helping to spearhead the effort to “reform” our public schools. According to Stephanie Simon, Michelle Rhee, founder and CEO of StudentsFirst, has “emerged as the leader of an unlikely coalition of politicians, philanthropists, financiers and entrepreneurs who believe the nation’s $500 billion-a-year public education system needs a massive overhaul.” Simon added that Rhee, the former chancellor of the D.C. public schools, “has vowed to raise $1 billion” for StudentsFirst, and “forever break the hold of teachers unions on education policy.”
Simon continued:
StudentsFirst has its own political action committee (PAC), its own SuperPAC, and a staff of 75, including a cadre of seasoned lobbyists Rhee sends from state to state as political battles heat up. She has flooded the airwaves with TV and radio ads in a half dozen states weighing new policies on charter schools, teacher assessment and other hot-button issues.
To her supporters, Rhee is a once-in-a-generation leader who has the smarts and the star power to make a difference on one of the nation’s most intractable public policy issues.
But critics say Rhee risks destroying the very public schools she aims to save by forging alliances with political conservatives, evangelical groups and business interests that favor turning a large chunk of public education over to the private sector. She won’t disclose her donors, but public records indicate that they include billionaire financiers and wealthy foundations.
In January the National Opportunity to Learn Campaign published its review of Rhee’s StudentsFirst State Policy Report Card for 2013:
Here’s an excerpt from the summary of the campaign’s review:
On Monday, the pro-privatization education group StudentsFirst, led by former D.C. public schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, released a State Policy Report Card, ranking states and giving each a letter grade based on their implementation of a slew of education reform policies. Rather than focus on issues facing students and families, particularly those affected by unequal access to school resources, the policy benchmarks in the new report reveal StudentsFirst’s obsession with charter schools and de-professionalizing the teaching profession. The report pushes policies that are either untested or disproven — but happen to be welcome in the halls of right-wing think tanks and politicians.
The National Opportunity to Learn Campaign listed five reasons why the StudentsFrirst Report Card is “a veritable wish list for privatization advocates and a recipe for failure for everyone else”:
1. Ironically, It Ignores The Needs of Students
2. It Opposes Personalized and Student-Centered Learning
3. It Argues That We Don’t Have Enough Quality Teachers… While Advocating That We Lower the Bar for Teacher Preparation
4. It Continues the Disastrous High-Stakes Testing Drumbeat
5. It Advocates “Equal Funding” and “Equitable Access” for Charter Corporations and Private Schools, Not Students
The DeVos Family
In May of 2011, Rachel Tabachnick wrote an article for AlterNet about the DeVos family, a wealthy family that has “remained largely under the radar, while leading a stealth assault on America’s schools” that has the “potential to do away with public education as we know it.”
Quoting Tabachnick:
Vouchers have always been a staple of the right-wing agenda. Like previous efforts, this most recent push for vouchers is led by a network of conservative think tanks, PACs, Religious Right groups and wealthy conservative donors. But “school choice,” as they euphemistically paint vouchers, is merely a means to an end. Their ultimate goal is the total elimination of our public education system.
The decades-long campaign to end public education is propelled by the super-wealthy, right-wing DeVos family. Betsy Prince DeVos is the sister of Erik Prince, founder of the notorious private military contractor Blackwater USA (now Xe), and wife of Dick DeVos, son of the co-founder of Amway, the multi-tiered home products business.
According to Tabachnick, the Devoses, who are big contributors to the Republican Party, spent millions of dollars “promoting the failed voucher initiative in Michigan in 2000.” Following that defeat, Tabachnick claims that the family decided to alter its strategy.
Tabachnick:
Instead of taking the issue directly to voters, they would support bills for vouchers in state legislatures. In 2002 Dick DeVos gave a speech on school choice at the Heritage Foundation. After an introduction by former Reagan Secretary of Education William Bennett, DeVos described a system of “rewards and consequences” to pressure state politicians to support vouchers. “That has got to be the battle. It will not be as visible,” stated DeVos. He described how his wife Betsy was putting these ideas into practice in their home state of Michigan and claimed this effort has reduced the number of anti-school choice Republicans from six to two. The millions raised from the wealthy pro-privatization contributors would be used to finance campaigns of voucher supporters and purchase ads attacking opposing candidates.
Dick DeVos advocates “stealth” strategy, Heritage Foundation, December 3, 2002
Last April, Daniel Denvir wrote an article for City Paper about the push for a school voucher program in the state of Pennsylvania. He said that names on the fliers of “legislative hopefuls” sounded like the names of “homegrown” candidates. He said that a “different picture” emerged when one followed the money:
…that of a statewide campaign, funded by wealthy donors, to stack the Pennsylvania primary battles on April 24 in favor of those supporting school vouchers, which allocate taxpayer funds for private and religious school tuition. The pro-voucher political action committee (PAC) Students First — funded by Pennsylvania hedge-fund managers and American Federation for Children, a Washington, D.C., pro-voucher group headed by Amway heiress and major right-wing donor Betsy DeVos — emerged on the state’s political scene with a bang for the 2010 elections. And they are back to spend big in 2012.
Lawrence Feinberg, co-chairman of the anti-voucher Keystone State Education Coalition, said, “I see a move by essentially a handful of very wealthy people who want to privatize public education for a wide variety of reasons. Not the least of which has to do with crushing labor unions, but they also want tax dollars going to private and religious schools.”
School Reform and The Profit Motive
In his Salon article The Bait and Switch of School “Reform,” David Sirota writes about the profit motive behind some of the reforms being advocated by “Big Money” interests.
Sirota:
As the Texas Observer recently reported in its exposé of one school-focused mega-corporation, “in the past two decades, an education-reform movement has swept the country, pushing for more standardized testing and accountability and for more alternatives to the traditional classroom — most of it supplied by private companies.”
A straightforward example of how this part of the profit-making scheme works arose just a few months ago in New York City. There, Rupert Murdoch dumped $1 million into a corporate “reform” movement pushing to both implement more standardized testing and divert money for education fundamentals (hiring teachers, buying textbooks, maintaining school buildings, etc.) into testing-assessment technology. At the same time, Murdoch was buying an educational technology company called Wireless Generation, which had just signed a lucrative contract with New York City’s school system (a sweetheart deal inked by New York City school official Joel Klein, who immediately went to work for Murdoch.
Such shenanigans are increasingly commonplace throughout America, resulting in a revenue jackpot for testing companies and high tech firms, even though many of their products have not objectively improved student achievement.
At the same time, major banks are reaping a windfall from “reformers’” successful efforts to take public money out of public schools and put it into privately administered charter schools. As the New York Daily News recently reported:
“Wealthy investors and major banks have been making windfall profits by using a little-known federal tax break to finance new charter-school construction. The program, the New Markets Tax Credit, is so lucrative that a lender who uses it can almost double his money in seven years…
“The credit can even be piggybacked on other tax breaks for historic preservation or job creation. By combining the various credits with the interest from the loan itself, a lender can almost double his investment over the seven-year period.
“No wonder JPMorgan Chase announced this week it was creating a new $325 million pool to invest in charter schools and take advantage of the New Markets Tax Credit.”
SOURCES
Ravitch: A primer on the group driving school reform (Washington Post)
Activist targeting schools, backed by big bucks (Reuters)
5 Ways Michelle Rhee’s Report Puts Students Last (National Opportunity to Learn Campaign)
Right-Wing Campaign to Privatize Public Ed Takes Hold in Pennsylvania (AlterNet)
Big corporate money in support of school vouchers hits primary races statewide. Will it tip the scales in Philly? (City Paper)
The bait and switch of school “reform” (Salon)
The Deep Pockets Behind Education Reform (Forbes)
Privatizing Public Education, Higher Ed Policy, and Teachers (The Center for American Democracy)
Gene,
“And they while away their hours,
In their Ivory Towers,
Til they wind up with flowers in the back
of a black limousine”
Gene,
It is a catchy song musically and very meaningful lyrically. As you know it’s take from the title of Eric Berne’s book “The Games People Play”. That book had a profound effect on me at a crucial time in my life in the late 60’s. Berne invented Transactional Analysis, which is a sister therapy to Gestalt. I think that book is still valuable for people today and the song does get a lot of the books essence.
Mike,
You reference Mr. South’s song fairly frequently and I must say every time you do, I’m a bit surprised that someone hasn’t had success with a remake of it in the intervening years. It’s a well written song.
“I apologize to you for any angst I may have caused, broken ankle or not. I’m still being lectured to by folks but I will unilaterally withdraw further response out of respect for you and your request.”
And Nick,
I sincerely apologize to you, if by ill chance you somehow misinterpreted my discussion with you as attacking you in any way other than on the merits.
Tony,
Yep.
Darren,
From what I’ve seen, you have noting to apologize for. You generally follow the Ethic of Reciprocity whether you decide to engage or turn the other cheek. You understand the idea of “don’t start none, won’t be none”. You also understand that the EoR does not obligate you to either suffer fools or turn other cheek in response. It is an obligation on your actions, not your reactions in response to the actions of others. You are exactly as nice to people as they let you be, which in your case is generally pretty nice.
Nick says, I’m the first and almost certainly the last to apologize.
That’s hilarious, he turns his apology into the very kind of insult and character attack on everybody else for which he is supposedly apologizing!
I guess I should also apologize for some of the comments I have made where I have also criticized personally some of our more inflamatory commenters. I tried to make an effort to do better as when the case of the last time Professor Turley requested this a few months ago. But, I got caught up in some of the flame wars that ensued from some rather racist and holocaust denial advocates.
Everyone could do some good from what is discussed here based upon their own situation. In my own world I took to heart what was happening to the distillery, Ogden’s Own, which produces the Five Wives Vodka which was illegally banned in Idaho and the subject of several blog subjects and Professor Turley’s legal help and was upset as to what was going on. So I took action and helped them bring it into Washington State, (my store was the first in WA to sell it) Now, many stores carry their products here. And, I did it because I felt it was unjust what Idaho did and I wanted to embarass Idaho for their actions and help out the underdog. When I brought the product to my store, I took out a big advert in the newspaper of our state’s capital, ridiculing the state of Idaho for its actions and promiting Ogden’s Own’s product. I have sold a lot of their products, all generating revenue for WA and sales for the distillery.
Anyone can do something similar, find the right topic, take action, and do the right thing.
Tony,
You’ll get no disagreement from me on that statement.
Gene: There are not that many atheists in the country; when I first concluded I was an atheist, only about 2% or 3% of people in the country openly identified as atheists. Many more are “out of the closet” now, but I was speaking from personal experience; I don’t think that 98% of people vehemently disagreeing with me on an issue (like the existence of a deity) makes me insane, or grants a license to abuse me.
I think we can over time discern character without much error; to me the telling points of character are the inconsistencies and contradictions presented by the person in question. Bad logic and the inconsistent application of their supposed “principles” are indicative of at best careless thinking, and at worst (like Ayn Rand) a rotten to the core belief system of vindictive selfishness and disregard that they are trying to dress up as a “philosophy.”
Mr. Turley, I apologize to you for any angst I may have caused, broken ankle or not. I’m still being lectured to by folks but I will unilaterally withdraw further response out of respect for you and your request. I’m the first and almost certainly the last to apologize. However, I seriously doubt I was the ONLY person to whom you were speaking, unless I am “everyone.”
Is there some reckless b@stard that can be sued for your medical bills, pain and suffering, loss of earnings and consortium?
Tony,
“How do you know you are right about their personal character?”
Just like you do in meatspace. Absent action, words depart information. All kinds of both direct and indirect information in fact. The completeness and validity of that information under the light of critical scrutiny is another issue and as with anything probability is not that fickle and often false mistress certainty. Estimating the character of others absent action is always an estimation and sometimes even then. Unless you’re psychic. This is part and parcel of why psychology – even in these days of increasing ability to discern physiological causation with tools like the fMRI and modern neurochemistry – is a soft science that has a large component of art to it.
Some days I sure do miss Buddha Is Laughing, Bron. That character . . . lived to be of service.
Darren: How do you know you are right about their personal character?
I am an atheist, because between some combination of nature and nurture (my agnostic father raised me to question all authority, including his own), I came to my own conclusion forty years ago that religion is all lies, the remnants of stories told to frighten untrained minds into submission, and I have seen only reinforcement of that conclusion since then.
Atheists are less trusted in this country than sex offenders, and I have heard many a person (both first hand and second hand from my fellow atheists) attribute all sorts of depraved thoughts and motivations to atheists, and they are certain they are right. They are not.
We always face the chance of serious error when determining the contents of a closed box (a skull in this case) by inference.
Tony C.
I was speaking in the broadest sense, not looking for details. There are always commonalities of interest among people of good will who are interested in getting along. On the other hand, there are some people who could start a fight in an empty room.
Darren:
Go read some Buddha is Laughing posts and you will find out how to skin a cat with precision.
Folks:
I must admit I am at a bit of a quandry here. 98% of the time most people here I disagree with I can at least respect and understand where they are coming from and I don’t see the need to engage in criticizing their personal character and I agree this type of behavior degrades the blog.
But what is to be considered acceptable to that other 2% where a person makes such outrageous allegations such as holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, and then goes on a warpath of attacking the other bloggers, and it is their personal character that is at the heart of their insane beliefs and posts? Is it that poisonous character that can be considered to be fair game to criticize or should we just say our piece to dispute their claims and say nothing about the underlying cause of their maligned beliefs, their personal flaws?
Succinctly, we can look at two persons. Rand Paul and Pol Pot. Many can criticize Rand Paul’s politics but it isn’t really fair to say he is evil. Is it fair to call him a fool for some of his policies or his failure to recognize certain aspects of his approach? We call Pol Pot hearless murdering and depraved tyrrant and it would not be any exaggeration of the sorts, but where does one judge what is to be considered an acceptable retort, when the other party is the holocaust denying, or racist commenter?
I hope for a speedy recovery without complications professor.
Bron: Please consider those words (theft and slavery) in the literal sense of their definitions, not some expanded view. One person with zero governmental or legal authority to do so taking your money or your property against your will. Person A with zero governmental or legal authority to do so using force or the threat of it to make Person B work for the benefit of Person A, without any agreement ever by Person B to do so.
I think everybody but perhaps psychopaths are in lockstep on those points.