AEI's Self-Analysis of Why CorpEd Is a Loser

Great post below by Philadelphia patriot, Ken Derstine:

I have stumbled onto this amazing video from a panel at the American Enterprise Institute (look at this link) on February 5, 2015. This is a spawning center of neoliberalism! This is the corporate education reformers talking to the choir. It is amazing to watch. This confirms everything I said in Who’s Is Eli Broad and Why Is He Trying to Destroy Public Education? from their goals, to their deep collaboration with the U.S. Department of Education, to Randi Weingarten’s collaboration with them. 

Also, they might present a front that they are powerful because of the subservience of the corporate media, but among themselves they know they are just putting “a bucket in the ocean”. A number of times they ask why the corporate funders keep funding the corporate attack on education when it obviously is not working. They are also aware they are in an ivory tower and have little understanding of their impact on the “grassroots”. This is the video:

Is the ‘new’ education philanthropy good for schools? Examining foundation-funded school reform | American Enterprise Institute

This video is also on YouTube and should be downloaded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMDXfl9e4DM 

This video is four hours long, but watch a little of it to get the flavor. (Warning: I said there is no way I can give four hours to this, but it is so engrossing and important, I watched it off and on for two days and I’m sure I will rewatch parts.) 

Watch the first two panelists in the in the first panel. The second panelist, Sarah Reckhow, (starting at 16:00)  co-authored the policy paper ‘Singing from the same hymnbook': Education policy advocacy at Gates and Broad | Michigan State University . What struck me is how matter of fact she is in the video and the paper about Randi Weingarten participating with them which is obviously assumed by other panelists to be common knowledge. See pages 18 and 19 of the paper which shows Randi Weingarten’s collaboration with them. Sarah Reckhow comments that Randi Weingarten has been working with them to develop a teacher evaluation based on standardized tests.

Anthony Cody had a post about this paper on February 9. Reckhow and Tomkins-Stange Document How Gates and Broad Money Got Everyone “Singing from the Same Hymnbook  He makes no mention of Randi Weingarten’s role, nor does he link the panel (which his article indicates he had seen).

Also see my article: Which Side Are You On? | Defend Public Education!

After watching the second panelist, go to 55:00. There is a real demoralization they are showing. Notice what they say about the impact of the Chicago teachers strike.

The second panel is about the “backlash” against corporate education reform. (starts at about 1:30) The demoralization is very evident here.

Howard Fuller of Black Alliance for Educational Opportunity (which Philadelphia mayoral candidate Anthony Williams is affiliated with - see my article Corporate Education Reform and Civil Rights ) is on the second panel. Notable quote (1:54): “We (BAEO) wouldn’t exist without John Walton and this is one of the reasons I love that man."

At 1:47 the panelist Larry Cuban speaks about the Broad Superintendent’s Academy. He is followed by Howard Fuller. (Starts at 1:51.) His remarks are very revealing about how disconnected these people are from what is the reality in public schools and from the impact of what they are doing. Fuller seems totally unaware that he is working for the same political forces that have been underfunding schools for decades and the money BAEO receives from them comes from the low wage exploitation of Walmart workers.

The third panel, starts at 2:42, is about the future of corporate philanthropy. It starts with Dana Goldstein. I commented about Dana Goldstein on Schools Matter on September 30, 2014. There are also articles on Schools Matter if you do a search in the search engine for “Dana Goldstein". 

The second panelist (2:55) talks about corporate education reform in higher education. Anyone in higher education should watch this…and be very afraid. The fourth panelist, Jim Blew (3:18), left the Walton Foundation to replace Michelle Rhee at Students First. He spends most of his time attacking teacher unions. (Note: He says his father was a teacher union organizer.) One corporate ed reform organization he cites (which has gone below the radar, I never heard of them; they are not mentioned on Sourcewatch) as being very influential is the Fisher Family. 

This is the initial article that led to my finding this video:

School Masters: How Gates and Broad Came to Shape the Education Policy Debate | Inside Philanthropy

March 24, 2015

Frederick Hess at the end of panel one made an off the cuff comment (at 51:00) which summed up the bottom line for these people.:

“They (venture philanthropist) may not be as powerful as they think they are in terms of shaping what happens in the nation’s schools and classrooms, but they’re very powerful in terms of us being able to feed our families and being able to do the research and analysis we like to do.” In other words, there is no real passion, no real belief in what they are doing; they looking at spreadsheets and each others position papers….and they are just in it for the big bucks.

Ken Derstine

CAP, Chamber of Commerce, Rick Hess team up to Bash Public Schools

From a new report produced by the Center for American Progress, the US Chamber of Commerce, and AEI's Rick Hess:

Twenty-five years ago, when the National Commission on Excellence in Education released A Nation At Risk, overhauling our country's schools became a national priority. In the intervening years, some of the recommendations in the report, such as those related to standards, have been followed, but overall their implementation remains woefully inadequate.

This is from their new report, Laggards and Leaders, a truly horrible "report card" on educational innovation. You'll find praise of EdisonLearning (for devising "promising approaches to important challenges"), abundant praise for charter chaingangs and privatizers, and a whole host of other pro-corporate reform proposals.

Not surprisingly, "this report would not have been possible without the funding of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation."

From the Vault

This is part of an essay written in early 2008 by AEI/Fordham's Andy Smarick, a former Bush II Domestic Policy Council member tasked with K-12 and higher education issues (my bolds):

Here, in short, is one roadmap for chartering's way forward: First, commit to drastically increasing the charter market share in a few select communities until it is the dominant system and the district is reduced to a secondary provider. The target should be 75 percent. Second, choose the target communities wisely. Each should begin with a solid charter base (at least 5 percent market share), a policy environment that will enable growth (fair funding, nondistrict authorizers, and no legislated caps), and a favorable political environment (friendly elected officials and editorial boards, a positive experience with charters to date, and unorganized opposition). For example, in New York a concerted effort could be made to site in Albany or Buffalo a large percentage of the 100 new charters allowed under the raised cap. Other potentially fertile districts include Denver,Detroit,Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Oakland, and Washington, D.C.

Third, secure proven operators to open new schools. To the greatest extent possible, growth should be driven by replicating successful local charters and recruiting high-performing operators from other areas. Fourth, engage key allies like Teach For America, New Leaders for New Schools, and national and local foundations to ensure the effort has the human and financial capital needed. Last, commit to rigorously assessing charter performance in each community and working with authorizers to close the charters that fail to significantly improve student achievement.

In total, these strategies should lead to rapid, high-quality charter growth and the development of a public school marketplace marked by parental choice, the regular startup of new schools, the improvement of middling schools, the replication of high-performing schools, and the shuttering of low-performing schools.

As chartering increases its market share in a city, the district will come under growing financial pressure. The district, despite educating fewer and fewer students, will still require a large administrative staff to process payroll and benefits, administer federal programs, and oversee special education. With a lopsided adult-to-student ratio, the district's per-pupil costs will skyrocket.

At some point along the district's path from monopoly provider to financially unsustainable marginal player, the city's investors and stakeholders--taxpayers, foundations, business leaders, elected officials, and editorial boards--are likely to demand fundamental change. That is, eventually the financial crisis will become a political crisis. If the district has progressive leadership, one of two best-case scenarios may result. The district could voluntarily begin the shift to an authorizer, developing a new relationship with its schools and reworking its administrative structure to meet the new conditions. Or, believing the organization is unable to make this change, the district could gradually transfer its schools to an established authorizer.

You can practically check off each of Smarick's suggestions for a pro-charter policy environment, particularly in places like Los Angeles. The general silence of Right-wing education "reformers" (hell-bent, in reality, on destroying and privatizing public education) is not a coincidence - they're largely happy with Obama/Duncan's education agenda.

Welcome to "third way" centrism.