Astroturf Organizing 101: Walton Family Gives $6.3 Million to Parent Revolution

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

Parent Revolution (the Los Angeles organization behind many of that city’s Parent Trigger charter conversion attempts) has a radical, populist-sounding name. Its stated goal is to empower poor parents to transform their low-performing neighborhood schools into successful ones. Everyone from politicians and right wing demagogues to teachers and their unions pay lip service to empowering parents (or at least getting them more “involved” in their children’s education).

In reality, though, Parent Revolution is a front group for private charter school operators and their wealthy allies in the Education Reform movement who support weakening and ultimately abolishing the teachers’ unions, tenure and seniority; increasing testing, online learning and the deskilling of the teaching profession; lowering overall costs to increase charter school profits and lower state spending on education.

Parent Revolution’s executive director, Ben Austin, is a millionaire former state school board member and Los Angeles Deputy Member (under Mayor Riordin), who earns over $200,000 per year from the organization. He also earned over $94,000 in 2008 as a consultant for the private charter school organization, Green Dot, according to Schools Matter. It should come as no surprise that Parent Revolution, which advocates for the conversion of traditional public schools into charter schools by way of California’s Parent Trigger law, was created by Green Dot’s founder, Steve Barr, quite likely in hopes of winning some of the contracts to run the soon to be converted schools.

A recent investigation by Frying Pan News has found that the Walton Family Foundation has pumped $6.3 million into Parent Revolution since 2009. (An interactive infographic from Frying Pan News can be seen here). The Gates Foundation has donated $1.6 million, and a host of other wealthy donors (including Eli Broad) have also kicked in more than $1 million each. In total, 18 different foundations have provided the organization with over $14.8 million since 2009. The Emerson Collective Education Fund (started by the widow of former Apple CEO Steve Jobs) has also donated $1.2 million.

Not long after California’s Parent Trigger law was approved in 2010, similar legislation started to pop up across the country, thanks to model legislation created by ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Commission) and the ultra-conservative Heartland Institute, in Chicago. The movement for Parent Trigger laws received additional support from the Hollywood propaganda flick, Won’t Back Down, which was produced and funded by Walden Media, which is owned by reactionary billionaire Philip Anschutz, a longtime supporter of free market education reform.

Parent Revolution’s succeeded in converting Desert Trails Elementary school in San Bernardino County, but not without controversy (the conversion was originally rejected by the school board because of irregularities in the petition process, as well as doctored signatures). However, even many of the parents who voted for the conversion ultimately felt duped. According to Alternet, Desert Trails parent Lori Yuan said Parent Revolution organizers tricked parents into thinking they were merely trying to improve conditions at the school, rather than turning it over to a private charter operator: “Our community was misled. . . Parents didn’t know they were signing for a charter takeover.”

California Flunks Rhee’s Reform Ratings—Badge of Honor?

Image adapted from Flickr image by Calsidyrose

Michelle Rhee’s Students First advocacy group issued its ratings of state reform efforts last week. California was ranked 41^st nationally, with an overall score of F, according to the Los Angeles Times.  According to Students First, California has been asleep at the wheel with respect to the “reforms,” failing to limit teacher tenure and require student test scores to evaluate teachers.

Richard Zeiger, Deputy Supt. at the California Department of Education called the F grade a "badge of honor."

While it may be refreshing to hear a high ranking education official disparage Rhee’s astroturf school privatization organization, the fact that California ranked so high on her list should still be an embarrassment. Consider that there are 9 other states that ranked lower than California which, according to the backward logic of Rhee, means there are 9 that have done a better job than California at resisting free market reforms. Furthermore, the only high mark California did receive was for being the birthplace of “parent trigger” laws, which are essentially a Trojan horse for corporate education profiteers and for-profit charter school operators to grab taxpayer dollars—hardly a mark of honor.

No states received an A from Rhee’s organization. The two top states were Louisiana and Florida, which each earned a B-. Louisiana has been one the quickest to give away its public schools to non-unionized private charter school operators, particularly in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. In New Orleans, over 70% of students now go to charter schools. Florida bases 50% of teacher evaluations on student test scores even though those scores are highly variable from year to year and completely unreliable for all but those at the extremes.

Even though Massachusetts has among the highest levels of student achievement, the state only received a D+ because it did not do enough to crush teachers unions and give away control of its schools to education profiteers. Montana received an F for strongly supporting local control of its schools.

Use a Gun, Go to Church

The controversial and scandal plagued Parent Trigger attempt at McKinley Elementary, in Compton, may finally be resolved, but not in parents’ favor. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Anthony Mohr has ruled that he will throw out the petitions signed by 265 parents because many failed to date their signatures, in violation of state law (See John Festerwald’s TopEd blog).

Mohr seemed saddened by his decision, as he had been pumping for parents in his previous rulings on the case. However, as a dutiful servant of the state, he acquiesced to the rule of law, telling parents he understood their frustration and thought his ruling might even be detrimental to the interests of their students. Nevertheless, parents who pulled the trigger at McKinley will still get their lovely new charter school. It will just be just housed in a local church, rather than in a public school building.

The Compton case was the first attempt at using California’s Parent Trigger law. Contrary to the claims of advocates, it was not a truly parent-initiated reform or an example of “parent power.” Rather, the “movement” was initiated by an astroturf organization known as Parent Revolution, which was funded by Eli Broad, a billionaire financier and opponent of public education, and chaired by Steve Barr, former CEO of Green Dot Public Schools, Inc. Green Dot, itself, has received funding from Broad and Bill Gates.

Parent Revolution targeted several low income communities in the Los Angeles area and went door to door to recruit parents. In other words, Parent Revolution is really more like a gang of corporate raiders than a grass roots parental choice movement. In order to obtain the necessary signatures, Parent Revolution resorted to bullying and intimidation of parents, even threatening to have immigrant parents deported if they refused to sign the petition.

Teachers Veto Parent Trigger

Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons

In a potential (albeit double-edged) victory for teachers, they may gain the power to nullify charter conversions resulting from California’s Parent Trigger law. The law has been in limbo, as the State Board of Education tried to resolve conflicts and ambiguities in its original wording. A final version probably won’t be completed until July, reports John Fensterwald - Educated Guess, in his Toped piece: Could teachers veto charter option?

It is a victory for teachers because it gives them some power to fight the potential layoffs or loss of union rights that typically result from charter school conversion. Charter schools conversion also typically reduces or eliminates teacher and parent oversight and their voices from decision-making. It is also a victory for teachers because they are in the best position to understand the needs of their student population and to be able to see the larger picture and plan reforms that benefit the majority of students, rather than a vocal subset.

The decision is potentially double-edged because if teachers veto a decision made by the majority of parents, they will likely alienate parents and exacerbate relations with a powerful ally. This could increase animosity toward their unions and further fuel the anti-teacher hysteria that is currently poisoning the education reform discourse. However, this should not happen if teachers cultivate strong relationships with parents in the first place and work with them to develop a common understanding of the needs of the school and solutions that are not only beneficial to students, but that also preserve parent and teacher oversight of the school.

The problem is that the Parent Trigger law is not really about parent power at all. It is a Trojan Horse that allows private charter school companies to force their way into districts under the illusion that parents made the decision. This was clearly manifested at Compton’s McKinley Elementary, the law’s first test case, where Parent Revolution, a front group for Green Dot Charter Schools, funded and manipulated the process, even resorting to intimidation and extortion in order to pad the vote. Astroturf organizations like Parent Revolution will certainly exploit any teacher resistance to their advantage, making it even more urgent for teachers to be well-organized before anyone evens starts to discuss Parent Triggers.

The reason why teachers may win a veto over Parent Trigger charter conversions is because there was already a law on the books that allowed a majority of teachers to vote to convert their school to a charter school. Therefore, if a school hasn’t already been converted to a charter as a result of a majority vote of teachers, it can be assumed that a majority of teachers did not want a charter conversion. Because the Parent Trigger law must follow existing law, a group of parents should not be able to overrule a prior decision by teachers.

If a reform is truly worth doing (i.e., it is both beneficial to students and the benefits outweigh the costs), then it would make the most sense for there to be a consensus of all stakeholders, rather than pitting one group against another. Alienating any of the stakeholders can undermine their buy-in and full participation and consequently the success of the reform.

Not surprisingly, the Astroturf phony parent power proponents are angry with this turn of events. Advocates say that the purpose of the law “is to empower parents to change schools, not put obstacles in the way,” reports Fensterwald. He also quotes Gabe Rose, deputy director of Parent Revolution, who said “It’s nonsensical on its face” to also require teachers’ approval. Tellingly, Rose also noted that if teachers wanted a conversion, they would have already done it, suggesting that he doesn’t give a damn about the professional expertise of teachers or their concerns and issues. He simply wants free reign to use his vast war chest to manipulate, bully, intimidate and confuse parents in opposition to teachers and in support of his corporate charter school buddies.

Fix Open Enrollment or Abolish It?

California’s Parent Trigger law has received a lot of media attention lately. However, this is not the only new rule that increases parents’ control over their children’s school. Last year, the California state legislature fast tracked through an Open Enrollment law that would allow students from the state’s lowest performing schools to transfer to a better school, even one outside their home district. Today John Fensterwald - Educated Guess wrote about this new rule in a blog posting, “Fixing Open Enrollment,” arguing that it is basically a good idea that was poorly planned and executed.

One of his criticisms is that there are too many exemptions. For example, the law excludes charter schools and limits Open Enrollment to only 10% of the schools in any district. As a result, some schools are being punished, despite having made test score gains, because they were the lowest performing school in an otherwise high performing district. According to Fensterwald, an amended version of the law, AB 47, would exempt schools with an API score above 700, as well as schools whose API scores increased by at least 50 points. AB 47 also requires that charter schools be included on the list.

Fensterwald argues that Open Enrollment can be a liberator for families trapped in low-achieving districts. However, parents must first succeed in finding and getting their children into a higher achieving school AND have the ability to get their child to that school every day. This will preclude many low income children who rely on public transit to get to school and anyone else who lives too far away from a “better” school. Furthermore, lower income, immigrant and minority families are less likely to have the time, know-how and self-confidence to play the system in the first place. Getting a transfer requires paper work and follow up, and sometimes also requires in-person meetings, appeals, and pestering.

Open Enrollment already exists within many districts in California. One consequence has been a flight of higher achieving and higher income students to the “better” schools within the district and, consequently, a concentrating of lower performing kids in the “bad” schools. San Francisco Unified, for example, has an Apartheid-like system with most of the higher performing schools on the west side, and the overwhelming bulk of lower performing schools on the east side.
The higher performing schools tend to be the most crowded and have the longest waiting lists.

It is also absolutely essential to understand that “good” and “bad” schools and districts are measures of familial wealth, and do not necessarily say anything about the quality of the teachers or academic programs. Schools and districts that high concentrations of poverty tend to have lower test scores. All that Open Enrollment schemes do is allow families to move their children to schools with wealthier students. They do not necessarily get better teachers or a better quality education. Thus, contrary to Fensterwald’s assertion, Open Enrollment may not liberate parents from anything more than the knowledge that their child is picking up nasty habits from those rabble kids on the other side of the tracks.

Parents Oppose Parent Trigger

Parents Learning to Fire the Corporate Trigger

With all the media hype about parent control and parent power, one would think that most parents are convinced that they know better than the well-trained professionals who run the classrooms how to best educate their children. Not so. Parents Across America (PAA) issued a press release this week arguing against Parent Trigger laws. (You can see the entire press release here).

According to their press release, California’s Parent Empowerment Act (Parent Trigger law) “represents neither real parent choice nor empowerment.” (The law allows a majority of parents at a low performing school to petition to have it converted to a private charter school). They also pointed out that none of the options offered by the law “have been consistently successful in improving schools,” while these options are the same as those already provided in the federal School Improvement Grant program. They also point out that the Parent Trigger law is really about privatization, or allowing “some organizations a better foothold in public schools.” Indeed, the law was written and has been promoted by Parent Revolution, a charter school front group, backed by billionaires. Instead, PAA supports authentic, grassroots parent collaboration with educators for proven reforms like smaller class sizes.

“The Parent Trigger gives parents ‘no opportunity to choose among more positive reforms, and fails to promote the best practices for parent involvement from the ground up,’ as pointed out by Julie Woestehoff, Executive Director of Parents United for Responsible Education of Chicago.  ‘The process creates huge potential for abuse, and for disruption and divisiveness in school communities.’

Los Angeles parent leader Bill Ring adds, ‘I fear that this law, in its current incarnation, may be more about getting some organizations a better foothold in public schools.  Even if parents do choose to reconstitute their school as a charter, how does this process ensure that they are empowered to evaluate the changes and ensure better outcomes for their children?’

Parents Across America instead supports a process in which parents are authentically involved at the ground level in developing strategies for improvement.  ‘These strategies might include smaller classes, more parent involvement, or other reforms that have been proven to work and are aligned with the individual needs of the school and its students,’ says Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters.”  (For the full press release, please click here).

While the corrupt parent trigger effort at Compton’s McKinley Elementary has received considerable media attention, there has been a quieter effort under way at Mount Gleason Middle “School, in Sunland, near Los Angeles. The effort at McKinley was not a truly parent-initiated effort. Rather, it was spearheaded, funded and promoted by Parent Revolution and backed by billionaire supporters, and involved numerous allegations of threats and intimidation. According to Caroline Grannan (of PAA) and Sharon Higgins, the Mount Gleason effort has been spearheaded by a parent who wanted to replace the principal. Without an overt attempt to turn a profit, Parent Revolution has effectively ignored it.

Robert D. Skeels, from the Solidaridad blog, presents further evidence of the Parent Trigger movement’s corporate backing, such as its funding from the Walton Family Foundation, The Broad Foundation, The Gates Foundation, and the Annenberg Foundation. Granted, these are ostensibly philanthropic foundations. However, they are funded with corporate profits and push corporate interests, like union busting and privatization schemes which help educational management organization reap greater profits. Parent Revolution is a front group for Ben Austin’s Green Dot Charter schools. Sharon Higgens' has written about the corporate dollars flowing into Green Dot and Parent revolution in 'The "Parent Trigger" and its connections to the phoney LA Parents Union, Green Dot, Steve Barr, and Eli Broad.'  Skeels also connects Parent Trigger’s leader, Ben Austin, to reactionary free enterprise extremists at the Cato and American Enterprise Institutes. Skeels also dug up this wonderful Ben Austin quote from an Annenberg publication, "The idea of the parent revolution is to say fuck you, that every single thing about our school is going to be about kids. Otherwise, I'm sorry, we are going to take our kids and go elsewhere."