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.

Terrorist Teachers Threatened in Mexico

The U.S. may have initiated the absurd propagandistic ploy of equating teachers with terrorists back when Bush’s Education Secretary, Reid Lyon, called the National Educators Association a terrorist organization. However, the Mexican state has taken it a step further, issuing arrest orders against Minervino Morán and Gonzalo Juárez, leaders of the Guerrero Teachers Union (Coordinadora Estatal de Trabajadores de la Educación en Guerrero, CETEG).

The arrest order was issued by Angel Aguirre Rivero, governor of the state of Guerrero, charging the two as instigators of the uprising of teachers who are opposing President Enrique Peña Nieto’s free market reform agenda. Aguirre has accused the two of being “vandals” and “delinquents,” and, more alarmingly, with being connected to the ERPI guerrilla movement, according to the WSWS.

The strike began in February as a protest against Nieto’s free market education reforms, including privatization of public schools, teacher evaluations based on student test scores and a restricting of union rights. In March, the Guerrero government seemed to have conceded to the teachers, signing an agreement with the CETEG that would have preserved free public education and “democratic” teacher evaluations, as well as agreeing to pay back wages lost during the strike.

When the government appeared to be going back on their word, the teachers resumed their protests. Joined by members of the union of public employees (Sindicato Único de Trabajadores Públicos, SUSPEG) and the United Front of Teaching Schools (Frente Único de Escuelas Normales, FUNPEG), the teachers blocked the highway connecting Acapulco with México City in early April. The subsequent police assault resulted in five arrests and three injured teachers.

The strikes shut down numerous schools—20%, according to the Aguirre administration, which threatened to replace teachers with scabs if they did not return immediately to work. On April   10,   legislators met to discuss changes to the Guerrero Education Code. On April 24, according to the WSWS, the legislature rejected union demands, including its demand to be part of the teacher evaluation process. However, the legislature did agree to abolish student fees and keep public education free in Guerrero.

Meanwhile, at the same time legislators were meeting to discuss the changes, vandals attacked the headquarters of all the major parties in the city of Chilpancingo, according to the WSWS, while the police sat idly and did nothing, suggesting that the vandals may have been agents provocateur and not teachers or unionists, though CETEG President Moran suggested that militant factions of his union were involved. The Mexico City weekly Proceso magazine, reported that the vandals also attacked and insulted female reporters.

Regardless of whether the CETEG was behind the vandalism or the assaults, the union is clearly more militant than its counterparts in the U.S., as their highway blockade indicates. However, one should not confuse this militancy with any fundamental philosophical or strategic differences. The union leaders’ primary goals are to maintain their “seat at the table” with the legislators and their elevated status and pay as union bosses. They are not interested in any sort of radical reforms of the Mexican education system. For example, their demand for “democratic evaluations” is merely a call for CETEG to be a “partner” with the Aguirre administration, a vague plea that leaves open the use of student test scores and other arbitrary and unreliable metrics that could be used to punish or fire teachers vindictively, in response to their advocacy or union activities, or in order to cull higher paid veterans.

Likewise, the protests against the privatization of the Mexican education system, like those by their counterparts in the U.S. and elsewhere, never call into question the primary role of public education as a subsidy to the employers which provides them a sufficiently educated and obedient workforce and ample consumers for their goods and services. Whether or not the schools are privatized, the students are still treated as commodities and the teachers are still exploited workers. The main difference is that privatization weakens the size and power of the large national teachers unions and the job security of their leaders.

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.

Obama's Pre-K Boot Camp For All

The evidence strongly supports the notion that quality preschool programs benefit all children, especially those from low-income families (click here to see some of that evidence). Thus, it is refreshing that President Obama has made this one of his goals and that he is getting some support from both parties. However, Universal Preschool for All is not a panacea that will erase the achievement gap or solve the nation’s economic woes.

Larry Cuban highlights some of these problems in his recent piece in the Washington Post. Let’s start with Cuban’s first point, “that one issue brings together both CEOs and educational progressives, political conservatives and liberals: investing in tax-supported preschool for three and four year-olds.”

The fact that conservatives are agreeing with liberals on anything should make one suspicious. While they may be asking for the same thing on the surface, their objectives and motivations are likely very different. Cuban alludes to this by suggesting that not all preschools are created alike. Should preschool be “boot camp for kindergarten,” he asks, “or a place where very young children, as Alison Gopnik put it, ’be allowed to explore, inquire, play, and discover?’” 

The answer to this question depends on the social class of the children, and the parents who are asking it. The wealthy can send their kids to elite private preschools that focus on play, art, music and movement as a way to develop their children’s social and cognitive skills. Most of the rest of America cannot afford this. Even President Obama said in his State of the Union speech that “most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week for a private preschool” and the poor and working class are far worse off. Consequently, less than 30% of U.S. four year-olds currently attend a “high-quality” preschool (compared with over 90% in Mexico, France, Spain, and Netherlands).

This is a new education market, yet one that carries with it many of the same benefits of the K-12 market: captive, obligatory consumers; secure annual revenues from the state; subsidies; and the marketing magic of being able to say your business nurtures and protects America’s Innocent Children.

The question is, will the corporate education vultures looking for a piece of the supposed 70% increase in preschool consumers, provide a boot camp for other people’s children, or a “whole child,” Froebelian-Pestalozzian style preschool that nutures children’s creativity, curiosity and enthusiasm through play and social interactions, like the schools where their children attend?

The most likely answer is boot camp. These are not their own children, after all, so nurturing, coddling, fun and play are not their concern. Rather, these are the children of their employees, future employees themselves. They need discipline. They need to be prepared for the 21^st century workforce. This has led to a demand for “cognitively-driven” preschools with direct instruction in skills that give children a leg up in the competition for college and jobs. Driven by the national obsession with standards, testing and accountability, this has led to many private and public preschools now requiring cognitive skills tests.

It is important to note that Froebelian, play-based pre-kindergarten programs do not completely ignore the development of academic skills. They simply approach it differently. Rather than forcing children to sit still for extended periods of time and then repeat after the teacher ad nauseum, they let the children play and explore with provocative and intriguing toys, games, tools and nature, introducing the vocabulary, pre-reading skills, math and science as they go. The children take more initiative and responsibility for their activities and interactions, thus developing their social skills, as well as their reasoning skills, curiosity and self-efficacy.

It is true that lower income children typically enter kindergarten with vocabularies that are substantially lower than those of their more affluent peers. This is because affluent parents on average spend far more time reading to their children than do poor and working class parents. They also tend to use larger vocabularies with their children and introduce them to more complex words and ideas. Consequently, poor children start kindergarten with significantly smaller vocabularies and fewer literacy skills (see Burkam and Lee). This makes high quality prekindergarten programs all the more important for them.

It is not true, however, that low income children must be subjected to the same sort of rote memorization, accountability, testing, homework, worksheets and other nonsense they will likely get in the higher grades. They can still rapidly increase their vocabularies and pre-reading skills in a freer, Froebelian-style pre-K environment.

Pre-K Does Not Erase the Effects of Poverty

Lack of preschool worsens an achievement gap that is already in place well before children are even old enough for preschool (see Hart and Risely). Preschool has been shown to help mitigate this for some lower income children and provide skills that help many become school ready, but it does nothing to improve the conditions in their homes and communities that cause the achievement gap to grow over time, like hunger, illness and absenteeism, or lack of access to intellectually enriching summer activities. Thus, while preschool for all is a potentially positive education reform, it still suffers the same fundamental problem that all other education reforms suffer: It does nothing to reduce poverty and the wealth gap. And as long as these problems persist, there will continue to be an achievement gap.

Obama’s Pre-K for All Plan Leaves Out the Middle Class

Obama’s plan is to provide quality pre-K for all the lower income families who currently cannot afford it. But what about all the middle class families who cannot afford it, or those who are borrowing on their retirement plans to pay for it? Will they get any relief?

Probably not. Without relief, they will continue to borrow and save and spend more than they want to because they know the educational value of preschool (and they need day care for their children so they can go to work). Thus, the risk of middle class children missing out on preschool is less of a problem.

The government’s interest in providing free public education is to aid the employing class in providing their future employees with the basic skills necessary for work at the lowest cost possible. A small increase in expenditures to help the lowest achieving kids increase the chances that they’ll graduate might be considered a reasonable investment, but providing superfluous relief to the already self-sufficient middle class would be wasteful. More importantly, this subsidy will allow private companies to make large profits providing pre-K educational services to the poor, much like many urban charter schools are already doing at the K-12 grade levels.