California Democratic Party “Rejects” Corporate Reform Agenda

Democrats in the California state legislature approved Resolution 13-04.47 last week—also known as “SUPPORTING CALIFORNIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND DISPELLING THE CORPORATE “REFORM” AGENDA.” The resolution, sponsored (and probably written) by the California Teachers Association (CTA), California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and the California Faculty Association (CFA), the three largest unions representing teachers and university professors in the state, specifically criticizes two corporate reform organizations—Democrats for Education Reform (DfER) and Students First (Michelle’s Rhee’s organization)—because they

“see public schools as potential profit centers and children as measureable commodities . . . [support dismantling] free public education . . . and replace it with company run charter schools, non-credentialed teachers and unproven untested so called ‘reforms.”

However, the resolution makes no concrete commitment to do anything to actually curtail the growing power of billionaire philanthropists, investors and hedge fund managers, let alone increase funding for public education, protect teachers’ job security and academic freedom, or even improve learning outcomes for students. It merely “reaffirms” the Democratic Party’s

“commitment to free accessible public schools for all which offer a fair, substantive opportunity to learn with educators who have the right to be represented by their union, bargain collectively and have a voice in the policies which affect their schools, classrooms and their students.”

This resolution might be encouraging if it had any teeth, or even any credibility. However, the Democratic party (and the teachers unions) have continually watched idly (and in many cases encouraged) all the things they criticize in the resolution, including the growth of private, for-profit charter schools and online, digital and distance learning schemes; the erosion of teacher’s collective bargaining rights and the deterioration of student learning opportunities. Even the criticism that the reformists are reducing children to mere commodities rings hollow when virtually every politician, regardless of party (as well as most teacher and student advocates), has been calling for more STEM graduates, and for all students to graduate career- or college-ready—which is to say all students have a price on their heads and a value to employers. Never mind that there is currently a glut of STEM graduates and thousands of jobless science PhDs, while pretty much the only people getting jobs at all are those willing to accept low wage work in the service sector. Children are a commodity, and the less employers have to pay to educate them now, the more they save on their taxes and the less they’ll have to pay to employ them later.

The implication that the “reformists” are solely responsible for dismantling public education is also an obfuscation of the facts. California, which ranked 46^th in per pupil spending in 2010-2011, spent $2,856 less per student than the rest of the U.S. and would have had to increase education spending by $17.3 billion to reach parity with the rest of the country (less than the $20 billion the state had slashed from its education budget between 2008 and 2011). California also fell to 50^th in ratio of students per teacher and per librarian and 49^th in ratio of students per counselor.

During the past decade the gap in per pupil spending between California and the rest of the nation grew each year, yet most of this was the result of cuts to state funding (often bipartisan), not because of policies of the reformists.  This has been exacerbated by California’s increasing reliance on state taxes, rather than local property taxes—a consequence of Proposition 13, which passed in 1978, decades before Students First or DfER were even gleams in the reformists’ eyes. Prop 13 allowed businesses and wealthy homeowners to keep their property tax rates at 1978 levels, thus reducing revenues available for schools and shifting more of the burden onto the state. Prior to Prop 13, California’s schools received 53.7% of their funding from local property taxes and only 35.3% from the state. By 2010-1, they received only 29.8% from local taxes and 56.8% from the state. (Data from the California Budget Project)

If the Democrats truly cared about providing quality “free accessible public schools for all,” they could dramatically increase revenues by raising taxes on the wealthy and their businesses, increasing royalties on oil extraction (California is currently the 3^rd largest onshore producer of oil in the U.S., yet it is the only oil producer with no severance tax and has a far lower overall tax rate for its oil producers than either Texas or Alaska), taxing marijuana sales and abolishing the death penalty and Three Strikes law. Democrats currently hold a super majority in both houses of the state legislature, giving them the power to raise taxes and override the governor’s veto, the first time they have had this power in 120 years. Instead, they gave us Prop 30, which imposes an infinitesimal tax increase on the wealthy and increases the regressive sales tax (which disproportionately affects lower income people), but barely holds education funding steady, thus maintaining California’s status at the bottom in per pupil spending (and restoring none of the $20 billion the schools lost over the past few years).

They could also reverse Prop 13 and dramatically raise the portion of education funding coming from local property taxes, thus reducing schools’ current dependence on the whims of state legislators and greed of the state’s business owners. Instead, they have made another nonbinding resolution and even this only proposes closing one of the initiative’s loopholes. If the lawmakers were to convert their Prop 13 resolution into law (something they so far have not attempted), property taxes on businesses would be reassessed “regularly” instead of being locked into their 1978 values. While this would certainly increase revenues, it still allows millionaires to maintain artificially low tax rates on their multiple multi-million dollar homes.

The notion that Democrats are opposed to privatization and the influence of millionaires is also patently false. Governor Jerry Brown, arguably the head Democrat in the state, created two of his own charter schools in Oakland when he was mayor there and used his powers as mayor to divert city staff members to charter school duty. Both charters were heavily funded by wealthy donors. Furthermore, Prop 30, which was pushed by Brown, initially permitted the funneling of tax dollars away from the free public K-12 system and into the pockets of private charter schools. He also proposed killing California’s transitional kindergarten program, which helps low income children catch up to their affluent peers by the time the reach kindergarten.

The resolution is nothing more than window dressing, an attempt by the unions to make their buddies in the Democratic Party appear to be pro-union, pro-teacher, and pro-education. The unions need this window dressing because they have done virtually nothing to resist the reform agenda. For example, when New York, Illinois and Los Angeles imposed Value Added Measures as part of their teacher evaluation plans, the unions whined and complained, but eventually rolled over and accepted it without a real fight. They argued that they couldn’t strike because it had been imposed by state law, in Illinois and New York, or by court order, in Los Angeles. 

This is ridiculous and pathetic on several levels. First, when the state or courts dictate how teachers are evaluated—something that has historically been negotiated between the teachers’ unions and their school districts—they are shredding teachers’ collective bargaining rights. The unions have accepted this attack on collective bargaining in the name of democracy (or, more precisely, in order to not offend their patrons in the Democratic Party). Second, workers have a long history of striking despite injunctions, vigilantes, police violence and even armed suppression by the military or national guards, risking beatings, imprisonment, deportation and death. Indeed, most strikes were illegal during the 18^th and 19^th centuries. The 1936-7 Flint Sit-Down Strike was declared illegal. Sympathy strikes and General Strikes were made illegal in 1947 by the Taft-Hartley Act. The 1981 PATCO strike was declared illegal by President Reagan, resulting in the mass firing of air traffic controllers. Many of the strikes and protests in support of the 8-hour work day were declared illegal. Many of the Civil Rights, women’s rights, gay rights and anti-war marches were declared illegal.

Ultimately, if teachers and other workers want to retain their right to collective bargaining, let alone improve their working and living conditions, they need to be willing to engage in strikes and other forms of collective action, even if it sometimes involves civil disobedience. The same is true for changing the tax structure, increasing education funding, and keeping public education under the control of local communities rather than corporate boardrooms.

Give the Kids What the Corporations Want: Downsizing, Vouchers and PROFITS!!!

Michigan’s constitution currently bans providing subsidies to private schools and the public currently opposes vouchers. However, little things like a state constitution and public sentiment are not enough to get in the way of Gov. Rick Snyder’s plan to open his state’s public education system even further to corporate expansion. A gang of 20 has been meeting in secret with business leaders to figure out how to circumvent this rule, the WSWS reports.

The group includes several employees of the Department of Technology, Management and Budget, as well as software company and charter school representatives. The group wants to increase the use of online learning so they can reduce the number of teachers. They are also proposing a voucher-like “Michigan Education Card,” a debit card families or students could use to pay for “tuition” at so-called “value schools.” They are called “value” schools because they are a great value to their owners, since they bring in $7,000 per pupil from the taxpayers, but only spend $5,000 per student, thus producing large profits. (While the state would be providing $7,000 per student to the “value” schools, the state average is actually closer to $10,000 per pupil).  According to the group’s white paper, the debit card could also be used to pay for AP courses and exams, sports team fees, music classes and online classes, the Detroit News reported this week.

Not surprisingly, many of the companies that would profit from the change in rules were present at the meetings. Some of these included InfoReady Corp. of Ann Arbor, Vectorform LLC of Royal Oak, Billhighway Inc. of Troy, and the Huizenga Group of Grand Rapids. Bay Mills Community college, which already operates 43 Michigan charter schools, is another that stands to benefit from the plan. Bay Mills places a heavy emphasis on digital and distance learning (i.e., video conferencing, online classes, fewer flesh and blood teachers).

The meetings have been held in secret, in part because of the undemocratic nature of the plan and in part to avoid protest by a public that overwhelmingly opposes vouchers. However, their plans were exposed by former Michigan Teacher of the Year Paul Galbenski, who was offended by the conspiratorial nature of the talks. He said he quit after realizing “they were discussing a special kind of school being created outside of the Michigan public school system.”

On Monday, the state’s school chief, Mike Flanagan, asked that the gang of 20 be disbanded and pulled a Department of Education employee off the group because of the lack of transparency and the perception that this was a backdoor route to vouchers, according to the Detroit News. After news of the secretive group had been exposed, Gov. Snyder tried to distance himself from the group, but continued to insist that he was open to good ideas, and it was all about improving education and providing better job opportunities.

Feds Bust Charters for Corruption

In its recent report to congress, the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) Inspector General found an unprecedented number of criminal actions by high ranking charter school officials who “used their positions of trust for personal gain and cheated the students they promised to serve,” the 4LAKids Blog reported last week. According to the report, eight charter school bosses were busted for criminal activity, including several who were sentenced to prison for embezzlement.

One of the audits found that the DOE itself was asleep at the wheel in terms of monitoring charter school grants and that it lacked an effective process for ensuring that state agencies adequately oversaw their charter school subgrants. Some of the problems discovered included the use of unqualified reviewers to monitor grants, not tracking how grants were spent, and inadequate monitoring of charter school closures.

Even Union Run Charters Suck

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

The State University of New York’s (SUNY) Board of Trustees is voting today on whether or not to close the UFT Charter School in East New York, Brooklyn.  UFT Charter School, which is run by the New York Teachers union (UFT) with UFT President Michael Mulgrew on its board of trustees, has been charged with a number of academic, financial and management failures, the New York Post reports.

SUNY reviewers recently concluded that the school’s overspending has resulted in a $2.8 million deficit. Despite their overspending, staff members have complained about chronic textbook shortages and the K-12 school’s performance at the middle grades has been poor. However, the reviewers left open the possibility of renewing the school’s charter because their test scores at the K-5 and high school levels were good. The school has also been accused of violating the Open Meetings Law for discussing budgetary and school status issues privately and for violating the rights of special-education students.

While labor activists have criticized the typical anti-union approach of most charter schools and had high expectations for the UFT Charter, critics are looking at its failures as proof that a unionized workforce is not beneficial to students. However, the failures of UFT Charter School are due to mismanagement, not the fact that the teachers are unionized. Any administrator or boss can be incompetent, autocratic and secretive, even if they have union credentials or backing.

Furthermore, the very context and rules for charter schools encourages the kinds of problems of which UFT Charter has been accused. Because they do not have to follow many of the rules governing traditional public schools (including reduced oversight by their districts) and because they have been anointed by so many politicians and reformers, some charter school administrators and managers are no doubt emboldened to push their authority even further than already permitted. Yet despite their glorification, charter schools are also under scrutiny (by investors, regulators and critics) and hence pressure to prove that they are more successful than traditional public schools. This can lead to cheating, pushing out (or not accepting) students who might lower their test scores (e.g., English language learners, special education and low income students) and other abuses.

Finally, as most critics of charter schools know, charter schools perform no better, on average, than traditional schools, while many perform much worse. This is likely due to a number of factors, including the competency of the schools’ leadership and their educational philosophies and structures. However, the single most significant factor influencing students’ academic success is their socioeconomic backgrounds, not their schools or teachers. Therefore, a charter school like UFT Charter, with its large numbers of low income students, has a challenging (if not impossible) task, regardless of who is at its helm.

Ultimately, the UFT Charter case tells us nothing about the pros and cons of having a unionized charter school. The teachers are not to blame for the school’s failures. What this case does tell us is that inept/corrupt leadership comes in all shapes and styles (including union-made) and even competent leadership, alone, is insufficient to solve that nation’s educational problems, so long as the socioeconomic factors influencing student achievement continue to be ignored.

3 of California’s “Top” Schools On the Chopping Block, And Good Riddance

What makes a “top” school, top? According to the San Francisco Chronicle (and most other media) it is test scores. Thanks to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Obama’s Race to the Top (RttT), test scores are all that matter these days. This has led to numerous cheating scandals, as well as a reduction in science, arts, physical education and other curricula to make room for more test preparation. It has also led to a number of other scandals, such as the one at Oakland’s American Indian Charter Schools, now under threat of closure for financial improprieties, despite its relatively high test scores.

The American Indian schools are currently being investigated by the Alameda County district attorney for funneling $3.8 million to founder and former director Ben Chavis and his wife for shady real estate deals and services, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. As director, Chavis signed school checks over to himself for properties he rented to the schools. In one case, he charged the schools $1.09 per square foot per month, when Oakland Unified was charging one-fifth of that ($2.50 per year).

The Oakland school board has asked the school to shape up and convince them their books are now in order. The board will make its final decision on March 20.

The problem is that it is not just financial improprieties that call the schools’ quality into question. Chavis, who ran the schools from 2001 until 2007, has been accused of humiliating students, swearing at them and calling them names publicly. The East Bay Express reports that he also made racist and sexist comments in front of students, while the WSWS reports he physically abused an adult visitor to the campus and forced a student to shave his head as a punishment. The Express also found that the schools’ high test scores had nothing to do with good teaching or school structure, but were the result of cherry-picking higher performing students—a form of cheating that violates OUSD’s own policies. In essence, the schools were phony “top” schools that rigged the system in order to look good, maintain high enrollment, and serve as a cover for Chavis’ embezzlement schemes.

While the OUSD is threatening to revoke the schools’ charters and shut them down, they should not be seen as the hero riding in on their white horse. According to the Express, the school board had known for years about Chavis’ abuses and misconduct, yet continually renewed the schools’ charters, citing their wonderful test scores as justification. Indeed, the OUSB, due its lack of effective oversight, was complicit in both the cheating scandal and Chavis’ embezzlement of millions of dollars from the district

The OUSD likewise had no problem with the schools’ refusal to hire unionized teachers or its rabid anti-communism (one of the schools’ “10 Commandments” was “Thou shalt be aware of quacks who believe in communism. Hast thou ever heard of illegal immigrants risking their lives to enter Cuba?”