Grannan: Charters want accountability? That's a new concept.

Guest post by Caroline Grannan.

The charter school industry and its supporters earnestly assure the public these days that they want problem charter schools held accountable.

If that’s true, it’s good news. It’s also a drastic about-face for the charter school industry, which has long fought efforts to hold charter schools accountable. A May 25 New York Times article pointed out the same thing. The charter industry has been waging successful court battles against efforts to hold charter schools accountable.

“…[C]harter schools have at times resisted tougher monitoring,” the Times wrote. “In 2007, a group of charter schools and advocates sued the [New York state] comptroller's office, challenging its right to audit the finances and academic performance of such schools. Critics said the comptroller's office had no expertise to assess academics. “Last year, the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, ruled that charter schools were in effect independent contractors and beyond the comptroller's reach.”

Not that I’m unsympathetic to those who change their minds. After all, I’m a big admirer of Diane Ravitch’s. She’s the former Bush administration education official and former booster of high-stakes-testing/choice/privatization education policies who announced her change of mind and heart in her book “The Death and Life of the Great American School System.” Ravitch, who publicly described her soul-searching, now opposes the ideas she once championed, saying that in real life they have been shown to be not just ineffective but harmful to schools, children and public education.

It’s weird that (unlike Ravitch) the entire charter industry just changed its tune without missing a beat, though. There was no explanation and no discussion of the new philosophy or of renouncing the old philosophy. When did that new philosophy take effect?

Here in San Francisco a few years ago, our Board of Education (BOE) got beaten up by the charter world twice in a short period for trying to hold problem charter schools accountable. In one of those cases, the local, national and even international media eagerly, compliantly and unquestioningly leaped on the charter movement’s crusade, ganging up to blast the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) for its effort to hold controversial, for-profit Edison Schools Inc. accountable back in 2001. (More on that below.)

Then, in 2003, SFUSD had to deal with its own home-grown charter problem, a high school called Urban Pioneer that specialized in wilderness experience for disaffected students. In March 2003, two UP students died falling into a ravine at night on an unsupervised wilderness outing.

The ensuing scrutiny revealed that UP was also in financial chaos — “the budget allowed for just $2 per student per month and no janitors, testing or staff development,” according to the Chronicle. And UP was committing academic fraud, “graduating” students with far fewer than the required credits. The school’s test scores were rock bottom. Reportedly, the president of the school’s board of directors, a lawyer, had been intimidating would-be whistleblowers within the school into silence by threatening to sue them.

Yet when the SFUSD BOE began investigating the school, the charter lobby fought back hard, rousing the UP community and supporters to battle to keep the school open. Peter Thorp, best known here in San Francisco as founding principal of Gateway High School, our city’s most successful charter, spoke on behalf of the California Network of Educational Charters (now the California Charter Schools Association) against closing Urban Pioneer. I wasn’t present, but a friend who attended one of the public meetings tells me that the grieving parents of the deceased students had come to the meeting intending to speak, but were intimidated by the belligerent crowd and sat silently.

Meanwhile, despite its financial problems, UP somehow managed to scrape together the wherewithal to hire a high-priced damage-control PR specialist, David Hyams of San Francisco’s Solem & Associates. (Hyams had recently changed careers after many years as an editor at the San Francisco Chronicle.) The Chronicle quoted Hyams as likening SFUSD to the Taliban and its investigation to a “witch hunt.”

Urban Pioneer was ultimately shut down, though you can still find people in the community to this day who somehow managed to miss the whole story and who view it as an outrage that SFUSD shut down a “successful” charter school. I haven’t pinned down the source of that version of the story, though it’s easy to guess.

The UP controversy roiled our school district at a time when it had been recently battered by its bloody encounter with Edison Schools, the then-high-flying media darling that was being hailed as the solution for public education.

Edison was running one charter school in our district, Edison Charter Academy (ECA) at 22nd and Dolores on the border between San Francisco's Mission District and Noe Valley. Our wild and woolly superintendent of the ’90s, Bill Rojas, had brought Edison in, supported by a rubber-stamp Board of Ed majority.

Edison-friendly Rojas left in ’99 to run the Dallas school district (which later fired him), and by 2001, the BOE was no longer dominated by unquestioning Edison and Rojas supporters. The district was encountering the same problems with Edison that many other Edison client districts were reporting, including significantly higher costs than projected, low performance and “counseling out” of challenging students who then landed in district schools. Edison made burdensome demands on districts (one SFUSD central office bureaucrat who worked on contracts said she spent nearly half her time over several months just working with ECA), while adding insult to injury by issuing press releases touting itself as superior to the clients who had hired it.

Edison was founded and run by flamboyant entrepreneur Christopher Whittle, a non-educator who previously owned Esquire magazine. Whittle had obviously made some good high-level contacts in media, and when the SFUSD BOE started asking tough questions about ECA, he mobilized those contacts. Editorials criticizing SFUSD and praising Edison popped up all over, in places like the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the London-based Economist and even random outlets like a Virginia newspaper that headlined its editorial “Dim Bulbs” (referring to the SFUSD BOE). The Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News editorialized strongly in favor of Edison. The Chronicle editorial page worked itself into such a state of outrage at our BOE that one headline on an editorial about SFUSD used the word “goosestepping” (that particular editorial was not about Edison, but the Edison issue was the spark igniting a general frenzy of hostility at the Chron at that time).

News coverage, including a Page 1 story in the New York Times, portrayed ECA as a huge success and hinted at San Francisco’s leftist “land of fruits and nuts” image to claim that our BOE was opposing successful Edison for entirely “ideological” reasons. The press “forgot” to do a key piece of the research, which should have been to find out what was going on in other Edison client districts around the nation. (The insider term for that type of "forgetful" journalism is “check it and lose it.”)

The New York Times story addressed that issue by using a quote from Whittle: “None of the 44 other cities where we manage schools has ever done anything like this.” Reporter Edward Wyatt used the quote without checking it, challenging it or further commenting, letting it stand as a statement of fact.

But actually, Whittle was lying. Edison had already been kicked out by the Sherman, Texas, school district. Other clients at that time were looking into severing their Edison contracts too — among them Macon, Ga.; Lansing and Flint, Mich.; Goldsboro, N.C.; and Wichita, Kans., none of them generally vulnerable to “land of fruits and nuts” caricatures.

The bashing wasn’t limited to public school critics or mainstream media. Commentator Peter Schrag, normally a public school supporter, wrote a long piece for the leftist Nation magazine telling the same (inaccurate) story. Joan Walsh, now editor of Salon and a media star herself — and at the time an SFUSD parent, though not at ECA — did the same in a long Salon article. (To Walsh’s credit, she is one of the very few journalists who later corrected factual errors fed to her by Edison spokespeople — perhaps the only one.) When one Edison press release described ECA as “a successful school in a failing district,” variations on that line appeared in various media, including Schrag’s Nation article.

For the record, ECA’s achievement at the time (based on California’s Academic Performance Index compilation of test scores) ranked it close to the bottom among SFUSD schools for 1999-2000, the data available at the beginning of the media frenzy. And when the scores from spring 2001 testing were released, ECA’s were dead last in the district.

I helped other advocates research information about Edison, and we used the less-nimble technology of that time to create an e-mail press release list and a website, Parents Advocating School Accountability. At one point I wrote up an account of the situation to share with friends who weren’t versed in it, partly because if they came across my name (I was quoted in the Page 1 New York Times article), I wanted them to have heard my version first. A friend who was a Chronicle copy editor was amazed to learn from me that ECA wasn’t the highest-scoring school in the district. Though the Chronicle’s news coverage had mentioned that ECA’s actual test scores were low, the whole tone of the crusade had given her that impression — even though she was actually copy editing some of the coverage.

Meanwhile, Edison was fighting SFUSD in court too, and California charter PR man Gary Larson was mobilizing ECA parents to storm school board meetings in matching T-shirts, chanting “My child, my choice!”

Why did Edison mobilize against SFUSD — and mobilize the media on its behalf — while keeping a low profile about the numerous other client districts that had the same problems with Edison and were doing the same thing? At the time, Edison was making two ambitious bids in major districts. In New York City, it was trying to win five schools and a solid toehold. In Philadelphia, it was attempting to take over the entire district. My guess is that the thinking was that all this news coverage with a strong tone of disapproval aimed at one “land of fruits and nuts” district would divert everyone from checking into how Edison was doing with its various client districts. The strategy seemed to work.

What this all amounted to was a mass attack on SFUSD for attempting to hold Edison accountable for its commitments to its client school district (and its students). The fact that the media leaped gleefully into the fray provides a good view of the risks of trying to hold a charter operator accountable.

In the end, the outcome in San Francisco was a compromise. Edison and SFUSD severed their contract and the charter-promoting California state Board of Education took over chartering the school (the degree of oversight and accountability now is utterly unknown to the public). ECA is quietly operating in the same location, as a rent-paying tenant in an SFUSD facility. It’s an attractive facility in a great location, too, and a lot of young parents in trendy, family-friendly Noe Valley would like to get it back.

Edison lost its bid for the New York schools and ended up with just a couple dozen in Philadelphia. By now, Edison Schools Inc. has lost 29 of its client districts at last known count — and I am definitely not keeping up, so I’m sure there are more. Here’s an account of Edison Schools’ situation from the PASA website.

It’s easy to see why anyone who has followed the history of charter schools would be surprised to hear from charter advocates that they now believe in accountability for problem charter schools. We shall see.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

From the P.P.:

Bay Area readers will be interested in Vincent Matthews’ ties to Edison Schools, the NewSchools Venture Fund, and the Broad Foundation. Noticing that Matthews’ job history was one in chronic flux, in 2007 a reporter wrote, “He’s got a five-page resume that lists about 10 jobs.”

Vincent Matthews

• pre-2001: Various teaching and administrative positions
• 2001: Principal of Edison Charter Academy in San Francisco
• 2003: Vice president for Edison Schools (regional director of Edison’s West Coast operations)
• Next: Educator in residence for the NewSchools Venture Fund
• 2006: Graduated from the Broad Superintendents Academy
• 2006: Appointed as a regional superintendent of San Diego Unified School District
• 2007: Appointed as chief of staff for the Oakland Unified School District state administrator, Kimberly Statham, another graduate of the Broad Superintendents Academy (Class of 2003).
• 2007: Appointed as state administrator for the Oakland Unified School District
• 2008: Appointed as state trustee for the Oakland Unified School District (receiving an enormous salary as such)
• 2010: Appointed superintendent of the San Jose School District

Getting to know the Schwarzenegger-appointed, Broad-connected, pro-charter-dominated State Board of Education

Arnold Schwarzenegger has been working overtime to expand charter schools in California. Since 2004 on their behalf, he has secured federal funding, removed school district approval obstacles, supported state bond funding, signed legislation to provide charters with tax exempt and low cost facility financing for school facilities, and removed roadblocks so charters can access millions in construction project funds (12/07/2009 press release). In addition, Schwarzenegger has insured that the California State Board of Education (SBE) is continually loaded with pro-charter members.

I suggest you take a moment to contrast Schwarzenegger’s intense, and near single-minded focus on fostering the expansion of charter schools (which serve less than 4.6% of the children or 285,617 kids) with his extreme neglect of the schools attended by the remaining 95.4% (5,966,394 kids) of California’s children. EdData figures here.

The SBE sets K-12 education policy in the areas of standards, curriculum, instructional materials, assessment, and accountability. It also authorizes charter schools and has been involved with developing charter school legislation. There are 11 members on the SBE, ten of whom are appointed by the Governor, one of which is a student. The eleventh member is the State Superintendent of Public Instruction who serves as the SBE's executive officer and secretary. SBE members are unpaid. Appointments are subject to confirmation by the state Senate.

Ending their State Board of Education terms just recently are Rae Belisle and Jorge Lopez.

RAE BELISLE, the recently-stepped-down CEO of EdVoice, had been appointed by Schwarzenegger in February 2009. She was a full SBE participant for one year until March 2010 when the Senate refused to give her a confirmation hearing. They had received staunch opposition to Belisle. For instance, this was the first time in its 39-year history that the Association of California School Administrators had taken an active stance against a state board appointee, according to Corey Johnson, K-12 Education Reporter of California Watch (a reporting initiative of the Center for Investigative Reporting). Belisle is a strong charter school advocate, who had previously given controversial legal advice to the SBE.

JORGE LOPEZ, the executive director of the Oakland Charter Academy, had been appointed in March 2009 and fully participated on the SBE until February 2010 when he abruptly withdrew his name. His withdrawal coincided with the point in the senate confirmation process when his financial documents and business arrangements were being reviewed and concerns were arising about complicated business and real estate arrangements with his partner Ben Chavis (of American Indian Public Charter School fame).

Three new Swarzenegger appointments are awaiting confirmation.

ALAN ARKATOV who, among other activities, sits on the board for Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools, a charter management organization which has opened 16 charter schools in the Los Angeles area. Source here. Alliance received a total of $2,525,000 from the Broad Foundation between 2006 and 2008. Alliance has received $4,635,100 from the NewSchools Venture Fund since 2003.

BEN AUSTIN is an assistant city attorney for Los Angeles and the executive director of the Los Angeles Parents Union (formerly the Small Schools Alliance, aka the Parent Revolution). He used to work for Green Dot Public Schools and also served as a Deputy Mayor under Richard Riordan. Austin was involved with the “Parent Trigger,” an initiative where if enough parents can be convinced, pressured, and tricked to sign a petition, a school will be closed down and replaced with a charter. Eli Broad contributed nearly 50% of the funding for the launch of the LAPU and gave a total of $4,469,040 to Green Dot from 2005-2008. Read my 2/21/2010 entry The "Parent Trigger" and its connections to the phony LA Parents Union, Green Dot, Steve Barr, and Eli Broad

(Update: Caroline Grannan writes, "At one school where Ben Austin's Parent Revolution has succeeded in getting enough signatures to take action against the school, the community member who's the lead spokesperson for the successful effort is an alumni parent, not a current parent at the school." Also, follow Robert Skeels' valuable research about Ben Austin by starting here.)

JEANNIE OROPEZA, program budget manager for the California Department of Finance, was also nominated, but on April 28 the Senate Rules Committee recommended rejecting her nomination because her job at the Department of Finance presented a conflict of interest.

- - - - -

The confirmed members sitting on the SBE with strong ties to charter schools and/or Eli Broad are:

TED MITCHELL (SBE President) is the President and CEO of NewSchools Venture Fund, an organization which supplies charter management organizations with extra funding. He has been a member of the CSE since 2007 and was reappointed in February 2010. Mitchell has multiple strong connections to billionaire Eli Broad.

Mitchell's NSVF salary was $480,000 in 2007 (Form 990). NSVF received a total of $9,115,000 from the Broad Foundation (EIN 954686318) from 2002 to 2008.

Also, 2002 news reports revealed that Eli Broad had offered to donate $10 million to Occidental College in an attempt to persuade Mitchell (then O.C. President) to run against a L.A. school board trustee. Furthermore, Mitchell revealed to his trustees that that former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan had also offered to donate money to cover a top-level executive position at the college if Mitchell ran for the seat. Mitchell did not run. Read here to learn about the close relationship between Broad and Riordan as longtime friends and allies in ed deform.

YVONNE CHAN is the principal of a conversion charter school in LA, the Vaughn Next Century Learning Center. Chan was appointed in 2005 and reappointed in 2008. Her term ends in 2012. Vaughn International Studies Academy, the high school at Chan’s “learning center,” is in the International Studies Schools Network (ISSN or Global Studies Schools), a charter management organization started by the Asia Society in 2003. Both Chan and Eli Broad have been speakers for the Asia Society. Broad donated $12,500 to the Asia Society in 2007 and $2,500 in 2008.

Schwarzenegger has been generous to Chan. From a May 2008 press release:

Today at one of the nation’s leading charter schools, the Vaughn Next Century Learning Center, Governor Schwarzenegger announced the allocation of $463 million in Proposition 1D funds for new construction and modernization projects for 29 charter schools statewide. The Vaughn Next Century Learning Center will receive $6 million of the $463 million to build seven new classrooms for 189 students at the center’s high school, Vaughn International Studies Academy…

…“This funding is exactly what our kids need to continuing excelling at Vaughn,” said Vaughn Next Century Learning Center Principal Dr. Yvonne Chan. “I will now be able to move forward with the new classrooms my students need and make improvements to our campus so we can continue to make a difference in this community.”

JOHNATHAN XAVIER WILLIAMS is a charter management organization founder and co-director (The Accelerated School network in South Central Los Angeles). He was appointed in 2004, and reappointed in March 2007. His term ends in January 2011. Williams is a member of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) and the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO). (Update: See article from 1/2007 "Charter School [The Accelerated School] is in default on $9.9 million LAUSD Loan", h/t Caroline Grannan)

DAVID P. LOPEZ, President of The National Hispanic University in East San Jose, was appointed to the SBE in July 2006, and reappointed in March 2010. He is awaiting reconfirmation. The National Hispanic University is a small, private non-profit institution which also runs the Latino College Preparatory Academy, a charter high school, adjacent to its campus.

RUTH BLOOM (SBE Vice President) was appointed in 2004 and reappointed in February 2007. Her term ends in January 2011. Bloom is a partner in a jewelry company (AR Designs), and is heavily involved with collecting art, art education, and art museums, both in Southern California and Sun Valley, Idaho.

From the 1990s until February 2009, Bloom served with Eli Broad on the board of trustees for the LA The Museum of Contemporary Art. Broad is LACMA’s Founding Chairman and Life Trustee.

And here's something interesting. In September 2007, Ruth Bloom (listed as Arts Educator from Marina Del Rey), a stated Democrat, gave $20,000 to Schwarzenegger, according to ElectionTrack.

- - - - -

Only two SBE members appear to not have allegiances to the promotion of charter schools or direct connections to Eli Broad or the Broad Foundation.

JIM ASCHWANDEN was appointed in October 2006, and reappointed in February 2008. Aschwanden is executive director of the California Agricultural Teachers’ Association, and serves on advisory councils for Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo and Chico State University. In addition, he has served as Vice-Chair of the Vocational Alliance, a consortium of educational organizations supporting Career and Technical Education, for the past several years.

GREGORY W. JONES was appointed in March 2008. His term ends January 2012. Jones is a State Farm insurance executive. In addition, he is chair of the California Business Roundtable and chair of California Business for Education Excellence.

Message for Vander Ark & the ed deform crowd

Tom Vander Ark is a participant on the National Journal’s Education blog. Recently he posted a comment on Crist's veto of the Florida teacher bill (SB-6) and called it “Putting the Brakes on Progress.” The bill sought to tie 50% of a teacher’s evaluation and pay to test scores, and to make it easier for them to be fired.

As an ed defomer mouthpiece responding to a defeat, here’s Vander Ark description of what happened in Florida: “…despite overwhelming public, philanthropic, and federal support for teacher effectiveness, the brakes have been applied by well organized and funded forces protecting the status quo.” Funny how he can put a negative spin on people in a democracy organizing themselves for a cause they believe in.

Indeed, Florida’s resistance forces became well organized, but the movement didn’t turn into a flood of opposition because of money. This movement was generated at the grassroots level using online social networking tools. Anthony Cody described how it worked in “From Facebook to YouTube: A Teacher Movement is Born.”

The large response in Florida may be an indication that a major pushback to the ed deform movement is finally getting underway. The drive is coming deep from people’s hearts and is emerging out of a sense of frustration and a desire for the truth to be told. It taps into anger that has been produced by one’s hard work being publicly insulted and disregarded for years.

People in the ed deformer crowd like to present themselves as supremely righteous warriors on a battleground where they are fighting for “teacher effectiveness” (their own personal view). They broad brush their opposition (= public school supporters) as an entity who never wants the public schools to improve, and doesn't mind if bad, lazy teachers are running the classrooms. And the ed deform propaganda constantly blurts that public school teachers ARE “bad, lazy” teachers who all deserve to be fired. The media and politicians have come to parrot and support their message.

But this oft-repeated, skewed outlook on teachers has never made sense, and, to me, has always been the main clue that something about their message just isn’t right. Anyone with a pinch of practical experience in an urban public school knows that the volume of teacher-bashing is turned up way too high. Any critical thinker can deduce that ulterior motives must be at work.

The presence of a tiny number of flawed employees – which will exist in any workplace – has been magnified and dwelled upon and talked about incessantly and loudly. What is being ignored is the fact that the majority of teachers in public schools are either perfectly okay or good, and some of them are even great.

If public school teachers were as bad as the ed deformers like to say, one would think that public school parents would be greatly dissatisfied. But as it happens, this is not the case.

In 2007, the National Center for Education Statistics conducted a Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey (PFI) as a part of its National Household Education Surveys Program.* The final report, “Parent and Family Involvement in Education, 2006-07 School Year” was released in August 2008.

This study asked a large number of K-12 parents if they were 1. “very satisfied,” 2. “somewhat satisfied,” 3. “somewhat dissatisfied,” or 4. “very dissatisfied” with their child’s teachers. Interestingly, the report only revealed the first of the four possible responses. But it was produced under the Bush/Spellings regime, so it might have been intentionally written in such a way to make public school teacher satisfaction appear worse than it actually is.

Overall, 64% of surveyed parents were “very satisfied” with their teachers. Here’s the breakdown:

· Public, assigned – 61% (representing 37,168 students)

· Public, chosen** – 68% (representing 7,951 students)

· Private, religious – 79% (representing 4,560 students)

· Private, nonreligious – 78% (representing 1,438 students)

· City dwellers – 65% (representing 16,195 students)

· Poor families – 64% (representing 10,012 students)

· Non-poor families – 64% (representing 41,487 students)

When a clear majority of parents are reporting that they are “very satisfied” with their child’s teachers, things are certainly not as bad as the ed deform camp has been trying to make it seem.

I wanted to see a breakdown of the remaining three possible responses for all school types, because if the truth was as bad as we hear about public school teachers these days, I'd expect to see at least 50% of the parents report that they were "very dissatisfied."

I inquired with a staff member at the National Center for Education Statistics who promptly and politely directed me to “Trends in the Use of School Choice.” (so much for 'dissing' federal government employees!). He suggested the variability seen in the figures (eg. 61% vs. 57%) might due to the fact that the second report used data for grades 3-12, while the other used K-12. (He's put out that query and if I get a response I'll post it in the comments).

So here is the data-based truth about what parents think about their child’s teachers.

TEACHER SATISFACTION

Public, assigned	1993	1999	2003	2007
Satisfied (very satisfied + somewhat satisfied)	91% (56+35)	92% (54+38)	91% (56+35)	91% (57+34)
Dissatisfied (somewhat dissatisfied + very dissatisfied)	9% (7+2)	8% (6+2)	8% (6+2)	10% (7+3)

Public, chosen	1993	1999	2003	2007
Satisfied (very satisfied + somewhat satisfied)	95% (62+33)	93% (62+31)	94% (65+29)	94% (64+30)
Dissatisfied (somewhat dissatisfied + very dissatisfied)	6% (4+2)	6% (5+1)	6% (4+2)	7% (6+1)

Private, religious	1993	1999	2003	2007
Satisfied (very satisfied + somewhat satisfied)	98% (75+23)	98% (76+22)	95% (72+23)	97% (76+21)
Dissatisfied (somewhat dissatisfied + very dissatisfied)	2% (2+0)	2% (2+0)	4% (3+1)	3% (2+1)

Private, nonreligious	1993	1999	2003	2007
Satisfied (very satisfied + somewhat satisfied)	97% (77+20)	97% (75+22)	94% (70+24)	97% (74+23)
Dissatisfied (somewhat dissatisfied + very dissatisfied)	3% (1+2)	3% (2+1)	6% (4+2)	3% (3+0)

The difference in overall satisfaction between the assigned public schools and other school types only ranges from 3% to 6%.

So, why would some people be working so hard to convince the public that 99.9% of the public school teachers are lazy, ineffective bums?

Because one of the things that the ed deform movement is after is to kill off the morale of public school teachers, and undermine any citizen support. They want to make the teachers weak, demoralized, and submissive, and they want to destroy their unions. This is the oligarchs' current national economic agenda.

And going back to Vander Ark’s original statement: “…despite overwhelming public, philanthropic, and federal support for teacher effectiveness…”

Well, “overwhelming” public support for his whatever-defined version of “teacher effectiveness” is pretty exaggerated. But I certainly know who he specifically means when he refers to philanthropic and federal support for the Florida bill. Naturally, this would be Eli Broad, Bill Gates and others, along with Arne Duncan and the Eli Broad and Bill Gates’ plants that Duncan installed as his senior staff members. These are Russlyn Ali, Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights (former assistant director of policy and research at the Broad Foundation, and member of the review board of the Broad Prize), Thelma Meléndez de Santa Ana, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education (Broad Superintendents Academy Class of 2006), Carl Harris, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Strategic Initiatives (Broad Superintendents Academy Class of 2002), James H. Shelton III, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement (former program director for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation who has strong ties to the NewSchools Venture Fund, a Broad/Gates, etc. supported, charter school start-up/financial support organization), and of course Joanne Weiss, who Duncan pulled from the NewSchools Venture Fund to become his Director of Race to the Top. And if you don't believe that some people who are working in government aren't there to fulfill other missions, just read here. So it does make sense that Vander Ark would consider these particular entities as the primary stakeholders in public education -- they are directly interested in its demise.

Broad, Gates, Bloomberg, the Waltons, the Dells, and other corporate malanthropies have poured billions of dollars into making their version of market-based ed deform happen. I hate that this country has become an oligarchy, as Simon Johnson defines as “political power based on economic power.”*** I hate that national education policy is now being dictated by a handful of wealthy, powerful forces who do their dirty work behind the scenes and never appear before the public for challenge or questioning. But enough about me.

Don’t forget that Teacher Appreciation Week & Day for 2010 are just around the corner:

• Teacher Appreciation Week is May 3-7
• Teacher Appreciation Day is Wednesday, May 4^th

The big foundations should send each of the nation’s urban school teachers a thank-you-for-your-hard-work note, a bouquet of flowers, and a box of chocolate. At least.

` ` ` ` ` ` `

*From the report:

The survey addressed many topics, including school choice, homeschooling, family involvement in children’s schools, factors affecting parent and family participation in school, parent support for and satisfaction with the school, parents’ communication with other parents, school efforts to involve families, parent involvement with children’s homework, parent and family involvement in activities outside of school, parent and family plans for postsecondary education, and child health and disability status.

The sample was selected using random-digit-dial methods, and the data were collected using computer assisted telephone interviewing technology. NHES:2007 was conducted by Westat, a social science research firm, from January 2 through May 6, 2007. PFI interviews were conducted with parents or guardians of a nationally representative sample of children enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade including children who were enrolled in public or private schools or homeschooled. The total number of completed PFI interviews was 10,681, which represents a population of 53.2 million students in grades K through 12, when weighted to reflect national totals.

**Here’s something interesting about the “School Characteristics” definition in the glossary of the original report:

“Schools that are public are further classified using the variable SCHOICE according to whether the parent reported having chosen the school or whether the school had been assigned to the student by the school district. Students in public school whose parents reported that their assigned school is their school of choice are categorized as attending a chosen school.”

So, someone like me who is required to participate in my district’s “Options” program by filling out a form in which I list my neighborhood school as my first choice can be interpreted by the Department of Education as engaging in school choice. It just seems odd and a bit off.

***From Simon Johnson on the Bill Moyers Journal, April 16, 2010:

"Oligarchy is just- it's a very simple, straightforward idea from Aristotle. It's political power based on economic power… I know people react a little negatively when you use this term for the United States. But it means political power derived from economic power. That's what we're looking at here. It's disproportionate, it's unfair, it is very unproductive, by the way. Undermines business in this society. And it's an oligarchy like we see in other countries."