Yolie Flores Aguilar email colluding with charter school executives

“PLEASE don’t forward this email. simply state it in your own words.”—Yolie Flores Aguilar

This email was addressed to some 60 individuals, including myself, on February 4, 2017. While its authenticity is not absolutely certain, I have researched the email addresses in the email body and they all seem legitimate. The content is consistent with the language that these charter school executives use both in public and internal conversations.

Yolie Flores Aguilar was an employee of the infamous Gates Foundation (of ALEC and Discovery Institute donation fame) while she sat on the LAUSD Board. She brought a resolution to give away new schools built with taxpayer dollars to privately managed charter school corporations.

Here Flores colludes with several well paid charter executives to avoid public mention that her resolution (inappropriately named Public [sic] School Choice) was essentially a real estate bonanza for the lucrative charter school sector. Marco Petruzzi and Ben Austin of Green Dot/Parent Revolution, Judy Burton of Alliance, Mike Piscal of ICEF are the big names in this secret missive. The lot of them have been plagued by scandals, but most of them are still profiting mightily from the charter industry.

Flores is currently running for U.S. Congress. If she's capable of this sort of duplicity and malfeasance while on a school board, imagine her in another position of power to further serve her corporate masters. Arch-reactionary Betsy DeVos would love to have more neoliberal Democrats that support her school privatization agenda of charters-vouchers. DeVos already has corporatists like Corey Booker in her thrall, Yolie Flores would be no different.

The second document should help authenticate this email chain. It's an email from Dr. Danny Weil with Yolie Flores Aguilar's <itsyolie@sbcglobal.net> email address in the to field. I recall she had a blog by the same name (i.e. "itsyolie"), and remember seeing emails from her from that address back in that era.

---

Yolie Flores Aguilar email colluding with charter school executives by Robert D. Skeels on Scribd

Dr. Danny Weil email with Yolie Flores Aguilar's <itsyolie@sbcglobal.net> email address by Robert D. Skeels on Scribd

High School Charter Expansion in Memphis Assisted by Green Dot Exec on School Board

Yesterday the Commercial Appeal reported that the next corporate assault on Memphis public schools will be directed toward the hostile takeover of high schools next year.  Although the upper grades corporate charter chain, Green Dot, was not mentioned in the story, the California corporation is already advertising for instructional and admin positions in Memphis.  From current Green Dot ad for a finance and operations director in Memphis (my bolds):

The Green Dot Public Schools Tennessee Director of Finance & Operations will support up to 10 schools in Memphis as they are added into the Green Dot network.  For the 2015-2106 school year, the Director will be responsible for supporting two existing schools as well as 1-2 new schools for the 2016-2017 school year. He/she will partner with Green Dot’s National Expansion Growth Team, Green Dot National Departments, the Memphis Executive Director, and Home Office team members to set up processes and systems to support the operations and finances of Green Dot Tennessee schools. 

And why wouldn't Green Dot be confident of big growth opportunities in Memphis, especially since they have an executive, Miska Bibbs, serving their corporate agenda while also serving on the Shelby County School Board.  Last year the multi-tasking Ms. Bibbs chaperoned a group of Fairley parents and students to Los Angeles to see Green Dot in action. Photo below.  This year Green Dot has taken over Fairley.

No doubt this will be embarrassing enough that the SCS School Board will insist on Bibbs resigning her Green Dot post.  And why shouldn't she? She has already done her job and earned her keep.

Below is my posted comment on the Commercial Appeal story announcing big growth in high school charter operations in Memphis:

If we follow the mandate to change what's failing, there are a couple of things I would address before shutting more community schools and turning them over to corporate operators.  It's hard to say what would be first, but here goes:

1) Change the failed accountability system that has been used since 2002 to verify over and over that where poverty is high, test scores are low. If there were some remedy coming out of this truth that we have known for generations, that would be good. But there is not.

National studies show charter schools that replace public schools are no better at changing the stubborn fact that the poverty gap is, indeed, the test achievement gap, even though a great deal of attention goes to those charters that appear to have the miracle scores that would seem to defy reality. How do they do it? Let me point out which charters I am talking about:

a) those charters that receive extra money from investors looking for big tax breaks and bigger real estate deals;
b) those charters that are laser focused on test results to the detriment of healthy child development and intellectual growth;
c) those charters that issue total compliance contracts between families and schools that demand meeting expectations or else, which leads to massive de-selection of low performers and problem students who end up in the remaining public schools;
d) those charters that burn through, every two years, idealistic amateur non-teachers [see Green Dot ad here] who are fed up and exhausted by the time they learn to teach on the children of the poor;
e) those charters with fewer special education kids and English language learners;
f) those charters that abuse and humiliate children to grind out higher test scores that are used to build corporate charter brand names and add more school contracts;
g) those charters that spend 50 percent more time in schools constantly prepping for the next standardized tests;
h) those charters that impose cultural sterilization and brainwashing techniques that are presented as character training--techniques that no middle class parent would ever allow.

2) Change the way we attempt education reform. Rather than pretending that taxpayers should believe that corporate amateurs can get results that educational professionals cannot, let us move the focus from what happens inside the school building to what happens in our society, which includes the school. Schools, alone, either corporate or public, cannot alleviate the effects of poverty. As the great educator, Jean Anyon said, "Trying to Fix an Urban School without Fixing the Neighborhood in Which It is Embedded is Like Trying to Clean the Air on One Side of a Screen Door."

As long as we ignore the poverty, segregation, institutional racism, and lack of cultural, social, and economic opportunities in the communities where we expect miracle schools to defy realities, one lucrative corporate cure will follow another, and the taxpayers will be left holding the bill with nothing to show in return except a deeply eroded democracy and children turned into deracinated robots whose sanctioned exploitation should bring us the shame we surely deserve.

The Community Schools Legal Defense Fund of Memphis will be on street corners beginning Tuesday near South Hollywood. Give generously to keep public schools public and to make them better.

NEA, SEIU, and Eli Broad

At the recent AFT and NEA coronations, there was news about new linkages with SEIU, whose former president, Andy Stern, had close ties with Broad, Gates, and Obama (Stern had a choice seat in the Obama box at the Inauguration Parade).

Below is part of a post I did in 2007, a day or so after a big fund-raiser in Los Angles for charter chain, Green Dot Public [sic] Schools, Inc.  To the left of Broad in the pic is Green Dot CEO and reliable attack dog, Steve Barr.  To the right of Broad is his equally reliable poodle, Andy Stern.  Broad coughed up $10 million that evening.

Green Dot's biggest plans, however, involve money. More money, please. Obviously, the tax-supported per pupil expenditure does not get close to where this "non-profit" corporation wants to go. Not only are the Board members constantly priming the money pump from the likes of Eli Broad, Bill Gates, and the Walton family, but school staff are urged to get in the game as well. From the Green Dot site:

As you know, Green Dot raises capital to fund start-up costs for all of its schools, including facilities costs. We ask that you not submit proposals to foundations that are on Green Dot's target list, both to prevent confusion on the part of the foundations, and also because Green Dot's collective ability to raise money is probably greater than any individual school’s or classroom’s.

Having said that, I do not want to limit anyone’s entrepreneurial spirit in going after funders, particularly if school staff has a connection that Green Dot doesn’t. I do want to encourage a spirit where we’re working together to get the most money possible out of people who are giving it away.

At some point in this space, I will try to create a list of foundations not to contact. In the meantime, it is probably easiest if you run your targets by me, and I will go over them with you.

And it doesn't stop with staff and faculty. Parents, most of them being low-income or poverty families, are required to give 35 service hours each year to the children's school. For those families where parents are working two jobs to keep the rent paid, these folks can pay off their fines, er, service with $5.00 of supplies per service hour. And there will be no shirkers, you can bet. Here's part of Parent Coordinator instructions for those would-be slacker parents:

Enforce consequences for parents and students who do not meet hours:
Enforce the following consequences if parent service hours have not been met--

• Senior student not allowed to attend prom and any senior events

• Diploma held until hours completed

While the Green Dot police are arm-twisting "service" from impoverished immigrant parents, there was a big Green Dot Ball this past week, the first Annual in L. A. Why? To raise money, of course, in order to expand this corporate privatization of America's public schools.

Here are a few pictures from the fun night. First, President and CEO, Steve Barr (left) with SEIU President, Andy Stern (at right, representing the L. A. service workers, don't you know), and Eli Broad (center), who gave $10 million that night.

Here's the note I got from Danielle the day after the big ball. Sorry I couldn't make it--I had to teach that night:

"Please find attached a few select photos from The Green Dot Ball: A Benefit for Public Education held at the Griffith Observatory last night.

The benefit was hosted by Green Dot Public Schools, the leading education reform organization, to help raise funds to open ten new schools in the watts area this fall. In addition, Steve Barr, CEO and Founder of Green Dot Public Schools, honored champions of great public schools: including, renown businessman and philanthropist, Eli Broad; SEIU President, Andy Stern; boxer, businessman and philanthropist Oscar de la Hoya, and Green Dot Educators for all their support on behalf of Green Dot. The event attracted over 800 distinguished guests including City Councilman, Tom LaBonge and Senator Gloria Romero.

Wolfgang Puck catered the event and Ferraby Lionheart provided musical entertainment. "

Danielle

Danielle Rauschendorfer
The Rose Group
9925 Jefferson Blvd., 2^nd Fl
Culver City, CA 90232
310.280.3710

Open letter to Ellie Herman, or how Green Dot's Marco Petruzzi's special education policies hurt everyone including their own administrators

"It is not legally or morally acceptable that these so-called "schools of choice" that are concentrated in urban communities and supported with public funds, should be permitted to operate as segregated learning environments where students are more isolated by race, socioeconomic class, disability, and language than the public school district from which they were drawn." — COPAA

Wall Street privatization darling Marco Petruzzi (above) led a beleaguered Green Dot through charges of racism, embezzlement, poor performance, and even cheating. He has claimed that his lucrative charter chain doesn't receive money from rich guys, meanwhile foundations give them millions. He has gone beyond denying that Green Dot discriminates against special needs students, he takes pride in it.

July 11, 2014

Ms. Herman:

I occasionally read your posts with skepticism. Typically, even when you seem to almost reach the correct conclusion about an education topic, you find a way to ignore your own evidence. In the end nearly all your pieces cheerlead for the lucrative charter industry, and provide cover for the biggest enemies of public education.

My interest was piqued today with a piece you wrote on a Green Dot Corporate Charter principal stepping down from one of the schools they seized from the public system. Here is the passage that caught my eye:

Nat was taken aback to find that 18% of the students were in Special Ed. "We thought they were overidentified. Turns out they were underidentified." When I ask why there were so many kids with special needs, he's not sure. Part of it, he thinks, is that the number of kids in foster care may be a factor, because foster kids are often moved from school to school, not staying long enough for their issues to be identified. "It's just conjecture, but kids in foster care, they're often in foster care because their parents were on drugs or couldn't take care of them, well, are you more likely to be unable to take care of a kid with special needs and behavior problems?"

For years those of us engaged in social justice activism have criticized the corporate charter chains—Green Dot Corporation has always been a particularly egregious example—for under-identifying special needs children. I've spent years advocating for families struggling for Special Education (SPED) equity, working closely with the former chairperson of the LAUSD SPED Community Advisory Committee. Marco Petruzzi, the erstwhile hedge fund manager running Green Dot Corporation, has gone as far as to attack those of us that have brought up this issue. He has called us liars (among other things), and gone on to say that Green Dot's SPED percentage are low because LAUSD somehow over-identifies SPED. The mendacious corporate executive stated that the entities' outside of Green Dot "over identifying" SPED children is—this will be hard to comprehend for any reasonable person—is a "civil rights" issue. That's right, the wealthy CEO of Green Dot is on record saying just that. Here's one instance of Petruzzi's convoluted corporate thoughts on the matter [1]:

our track record serving kids speaks for itself for those who want to look at the real numbers, but is a very technical issue and this is not the forum for it. For example, the special Ed issue is fraught with misunderstanding and manipulation of data. LAUSD has high numbers because it over identifies African American and Latino boys relative to many other urban Districts, a civil rights issue, not something to be proud. It also has high numbers because it doesn't serve kids well and thus exits them from special Ed in the typologies of special Ed that can be addressed. It serves special Ed kids in over restrictive environments. Anyway, I realize we will never agree with certain folks, particularly those employed by the current system and that view us as a job threat.

Ms. Herman, I appreciate your post as it bears testament to what many of us have always said about Green Dot and other corporate charter chains. Public schools also under-identify SPED as well, but unlike the well heeled executive quoted above, nobody boasts about underserving them. Petruzzi seemingly makes it a point of pride that Green Dot SPED IEPs are significantly lower than that of public schools. Green Dot has a long record of avoiding obligations to SPED students [2]. Moreover Petruzzi has a long record making outrageous statements, like when he told the families of Animo Justice that Green Dot Corporation doesn't get any money from "rich guy[s]". [3] Must have been all those years he worked for Mitt Romney's sister company, Bain & Company, Inc.

I agree with you and Mr. Pickering on the SPED issue. Since Green Dot Corporation, like all corporate charters, is about bottom lines rather than education, that will never change. Ironically Petruzzi is right to frame the issue in terms of students' civil rights, but he and his fellow six-figure profiteers are the ones violating them.

Advocating Public Education and Social Justice

Robert D. Skeels ****@ucla.edu

"Problem posing education does not and cannot serve the interests of the oppressor" — Paulo Freire

_____
[1] http://venice.patch.com/groups/schools/p/space-for-a-new-building-at-walgrove-elementary-likel839b5a4cd8
[2] http://www.scribd.com/doc/100558792/Green-Dot-SPED-Binder
[3] http://rdsathene.blogspot.com/2010/04/advocating-public-education-roundup.html the video in which Petruzzi claims Green Dot gets no outside funding is here: http://youtu.be/kbtUUBS3eO0 the transcribed quote is "We have no money. We're a nonprofit. We don't have a rich guy that gives us extra."

Parent Trigger charlatan Ben Austin booted off The State Bar of California

"Making students accountable for test scores works well on a bumper sticker and it allows many politicians to look good by saying that they will not tolerate failure. But it represents a hollow promise. Far from improving education, high-stakes testing marks a major retreat from fairness, from accuracy, from quality, and from equity." — Sen. Paul Wellstone (1944-2002) quoted on Alfie Kohn's site

Apparently the right wingers at Parent Revolution are immune to cognitive dissonance. How else could we explain an organization that frequently co-hosts meetings with The Heartland Institute calling the National Educators Association (NEA) teabaggers? In a desperate attempt to preserve George W. Bush's fringe right-wing No Child Left Behind legislation (NCLB), the Parent Revolution reactionaries claim that anyone opposed to Rod Paige's vicious anti-public school project are teabaggers, and somehow opposed civil (read corporate) rights.

The basis for these wild and specious claims? Parent Revolution doesn't want to see what they term "accountability" removed from ESEA/NCLB. Never mind that NCLB's false forms of accountability were never intended to do anything other than make it easy for the neoliberal consensus in Washington to push the corporate agenda. That agenda includes forced school closures, reconstitutions, and ultimately the privatization of the whole system for the benefit and profits of Wall Street hucksters like Whitney Tilson, real estate moguls like Eli Broad, and convicted predatory technology monopolists like Bill Gates. Indeed, in defending NCLB, Parent Revolution wants to maintain the standardized testing status quo.

All their astroturf blather about "accountability" got me thinking. When I think of paragons of accountability, Ben Austin and Parent Revolution are poles apart from those thoughts in every sense. Let's look at the facts. California Parent Trigger author Austin was under investigation by the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission (Case # 2010-36) because he was collecting a check at the City Attorney's Office while at the same time he was a full time charter school advocate (and part time Green Dot consultant) at Los Angeles Parents Union (aka LAPU or Parent Revolution). Besides double dipping, he used his city employee connections to host closed meetings with his political connections garnered from his City job, like with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Those connections also brought lucrative business to his wife, Tracy Austin, who makes a fortune as a fundraising consultant for the very same politicians that gave Austin a pass on his ethics violations. Where was the accountability in all of that?

Of course, Austin's conflicts of interest while working at the City of Los Angeles pale in comparison to when arch-reactionary Milton Freidman acolyte Schwarzenegger appointed the Parent Revolution chief to the California State Board of Education (SBE) to join the rest of the charter-voucher profiteers the SBE was stacked with. Austin used his SBE seat to push through the California Charter Schools Association agenda. He also used the seat to lobby for and manipulate the implementation of his and Gloria Romero's hideous charter takeover law entitled the Parent Empowerment Act, but most often referred to by culturally loaded name Parent Trigger. Austin's unethical and illegal behaviors on the SBE earned him a letter of censorship from the SBE demanding he stop breaking the law. Where was the accountability in all of that?

Ben Austin's latest foray into the realm of accountability?

Parent Trigger charlatan Ben Austin booted off State Bar of California

I'll reproduce my original take on this situation:

Parent Trigger author, Benjamin Benchley Lain Austin, aka the Beverly Hills Barrister, aka the Foppish Millionaire of Benedict Canyon is not eligible to practice law in California because of his failure to take a LEGAL ETHICS course as part of Minimum Continuing Legal Education. It's no small irony that a charlatan that claims to know so much about education doesn't keep up with his own, and more importantly, avoids taking classes on ethics!

I suppose we can't blame Austin for avoiding classes on ethics, since ethics are anathema to him. So next time the slick charter school spokesman and his band of pernicious privatizers prattle about accountability, we can remember that they have no understanding of the word whatsoever.

Special thanks to Lisa for bringing Austin's current State Bar of California status to our attention.

---

Addendum: A reader chastised me for not noting another form of accountability Parent Revolution astroturfers are guilty of shirking, and that's keeping their paperwork for tax exempt status in order. I'm a little embarrassed that I neglected to mention this, but in Trigger Happy Parent Revolution Refuses Form 990 Request, we explored how the Parent Revolution scoundrels weren't accountable to the tax paying public. The IRS sent me a letter explaining that they are investigating these poverty pimps.

While we're at it, let's not forget wealthy white Gabe Rose, deputy director of Parent Revolution, has the dubious distinction of being caught posing as a Compton parent when he has never lived in Compton, nor been a parent.

"Parent" Trigger co-author Austin knew he was breaking laws while he lobbied the California State Board of Education

'[Skeels] believes that Austin is only pretending to show concern for students at underperforming schools, and that his primary concern is promoting the "privatization" of public schools.' I would restate that: Austin's primary concern is promoting whatever he's paid to promote, and pretending to show concern for whatever he's paid to pretend to show concern for. — Caroline Grannan (Journalist, Editor, Educator)

Our recent expose of Ben Austin's criminal involvement in passage of the charter market share growing gambit cynically named the Parent Empowerment Act pointed out the possibility of a cover up by the California State Board of Education (SBE) itself. Surprisingly, just a few days after publication of Pots, Kettles, and Ben Austin's Unconscionable Hypocrisy, did the SBE send documentation that I had been requesting for months.

Here's the letter, chances are Austin never read it himself since he has never felt the law applies to foppish elites like him.

Letter notifying Parent Trigger Author Ben Austin of violating laws from California State Board of Education

In the letter, the SBE admonishes the avaricious Austin and tells him:

...please immediately discontinue any paid advocacy to the State Board of Education including advocacy on the Parent Empowerment regulations.

Of course, a stern letter — which knowing charter industry lackey Michael Kirst, was probably more of a nudge and a wink than anything else — did little to prevent the lawless Austin and his Walton Family Foundation funded minions from paid advocacy before, during, and after the entire process. No laws, regulations, rules, or ethics stood in the way of the entirely astroturf Parent Revolution ensuring their continued existence, since enabling school privatization is in fact their raison d'être. In a fair and just society, or even something resembling democracy, the law would be thrown out after such Machiavellian corporate manipulations.

The trigger law is pretty much universally despised by parents that have actually taken the time to look into who funded it, drew it up, and who it serves — those profiting from privatizing schools. However, some parents are liable to be bamboozled, browbeat, and bribed into supporting the measure, since they've been tricked by the corporate media and Arne Duncan into trusting deep pocketed corporations instead of their own agency. The only folks that like the law are extreme right wing groups like The Heartland Institute which has held forums with Parent Revolution extolling the trigger law and other free market fantasies.

I want to repost my initial description of the SBE letter here since it succinctly describes the letter and the circumstances:

Criminal mastermind Ben Austin, of the Walton, Broad, and Gates Foundation funded astroturf charter school proxy group Parent Revolution, illegally and unethically influenced the passage of the so-called Parent Empowerment Act (aka parent trigger) law. Although the State Board warned Austin that his actions were in violation, he and his group were able to circumvent democracy and get their charter school market share legislation pushed through the SBE. This letter vindicates my accusations of Austin's malfeasance in Pots, Kettles, and Ben Austin's Unconscionable Hypocrisy

Tomorrow morning I meet with a group of parents who requested that I help them combat Parent Revolution's paid right wing staffer Yuritzy Anaya, who is apparently already trying to privatize several schools in the San Gabriel Valley area with the tacit help of a neoliberal minded School District Board Member. Social justice activists and public education advocates must begin organizing struggle and grassroots resistance to the corporately sponsored Parent Revolution's onslaught before the entire pubic commons is turned over the rapacious charter school industry. ¡La lucha sigue y sigue!

Pots, Kettles, and Ben Austin's Unconscionable Hypocrisy

There's nothing the matter with teachers that a little less unionization and more COMPETITION couldn't cure. — Ann Coulter (racist reactionary right wing pundit)

It would force the district to learn how to run great schools by forcing them to COMPETE. — Ben Austin (Executive Director LAPU/Parent Revolution)

Few people are more despicable than Ben Austin, Executive Director of the so-called Parent Revolution (née Los Angeles Parents Union - LAPU) school privatization junta. After all, anyone mendacious enough to claim they're a parent with children enrolled in school when they have no school age children is lacking of any scruples. [1] Moreover, a man who can walk into impoverished neighborhoods like Boyle Heights or Compton and tell parents "I'm just like you" when he has chosen to live in a community that's "87.5% white and has a median household income is $169,282" goes beyond being amoral, he's downright immoral.

Of course Austin's ongoing campaign of dishonesty and pressing scorched earth policies for public education have made him more than just a pariah in Los Angeles. He and profiteering organization recently joined the ranks of fellow reactionaries like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Glen Beck, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter on the world famous "Crooks and Liars" website.

Public education advocates like myself have been following the Green Dot Public [sic] Schools' LAPU/Parent Revolution spinoff since its inception, and have beem following the vile Ben Austin since he first took [2] the helm of the privatization pushing organization. We've seen them do cynical things like having their well to do white male Deputy Director Gabe Rose pose as a Compton parent in order to deceive real Compton parents. We've heard parents from Garfield High School tell us paid organizer Mary Najera used to go monolingual Spanish church services with English only petitions and tell unwitting parents to sign the petition if they wanted their children to go to college — those petitions were actually to turn Garfield over to the Green Dot corporate charter chain. The list of Austin and his organization's lies, deceit, and duplicity goes on and on, and one would think that there's no lower depths that they could plumb.

They've found a way to sink lower.

A couple weeks ago, in preparation for last week, when the California State Board of Education (SBE) was about to vote on revisions to the deceptively named "Parent Empowerment Act," right wing reactionary "parents" Lydia Grant, Bruce Wasson, Monica Jones, and Carolynn Martin, with pro-bono legal support from the "Parent Revolution's" deep pocketed plutocrat backers, filed an ethics complaint against SBE member Patricia Rucker. Their claim? They stated that Rucker's employment with the California Teachers Association constituted a conflict of interest and that they would only drop their charges if Rucker would recuse herself on voting on the privatization regulations.

One wonders where these parents were when Parent Revolution's foppish millionaire leader was sitting on the selfsame board, voting on the very same regulations, but the hypocrisy of these "parents" and their "revolution" goes much deeper than that.

Kettles and Caldrons

Let's look at the first "parent" on the list of privatization plaintiffs against Ms. Rucker, the loathsome and imposing [3] Lydia Grant. The one thing all the mainstream (read corporate) media left out regarding Grant is that she is a long time board member of the so-called Parent Revolution. Yet she can speak about conflicts of interest. Aside from being nearly as detestable, Grant shares another quality with Ben Austin — she too has no children currently enrolled in the school she is attacking. Libertarian Grant is also a follower of right wing libertarian Ron Kaye and is a member of his "SLAP" project.

Grant's claim to fame is that she turned a personal beef with Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) Mount Gleason Middle School's principal into a festering vindictive campaign to oust them. She began signature gathering with Austin's blessings to have the principal removed. Of all the Sunland/Tujunga area parents I spoke with that knew of Grant, only one sympathized with her, and the rest described her as a pariah that browbeat many parents into signing petitions with her overbearing and abrasive personality.

My one encounter with the snarling, mean spirited Grant was outside the Beaudry Building at a LAUSD meeting where she was accosting and haranguing hardworking teachers. The woman's seemingly sociopathic resentments run deep, and I was somewhat taken aback listening to her bark at anyone not wearing the blue t-shirts identifying themselves as members of the reactionary school privatization groups Families That Can and Parent Revolution. I took these photos of her at that event, and even at that proximity I couldn't believe the vitriol spilling out of her mouth. Grant will be the subject of an upcoming article when time permits.

Parent activist Scott M. Folsom, whose popular 4LAKids blogs chronicle all things LAUSD, had the following to say about Grant being on the list of plaintiffs at the behest of her puppet-master Austin:

smf: One of the "four California parents", Lydia Grant, was the Parent Revolution Community Organizer of the Month for Oct 2010.

Parent Revolutionary-in-chief, PR Executive Director, Parent Trigger author, former Green Dot and Mayor Riordan staffer Ben Austin (whose 'day job' is Assistant LA City Attorney @ $119K per year) was removed from the State Board of Ed (Can you say 'Conflict of Interest?') in Brown's ascendency. Austin lobbied for the Parent Trigger Law in the State Board of Ed and also in the legislature.

But, hey - it's not personal!

Pots, Kettles, and Brewing Free Market Fantasies

Next, let's consider that when the reactionary Milton Friedman worshiping former Governor of California wanted a way to help his good friend and fellow charlatan Jed Wallace, of the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA), increase market share with as little resistance as possible, he brought in two well known neoliberal opponents of public education: former State Senator and current Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) California Director Gloria Romero, and Ben Austin of Green Dot's LAPU/Parent Revolution. In what was a perfect storm of Rand/Friedman ideologies, neoliberal principles, naked opportunism, greed, Heartland Institute and Hoover Institution fantasies, and lucrative charter market share grabs, Schwarzenegger, Austin, and Romero crafted a vile piece of legislation that became colloquially known as the "parent trigger." The law allows for well financed charter-voucher advocacy groups, like say, Parent Revolution, to drop into impoverished neighborhoods to bamboozle, browbeat, and bribe a bare majority (ie. fifty percent, plus one) of parents from the school in question, and/or the feeder schools [5] into "triggering" one of the four punitive provisions from Rod Paige and arch-reactionary George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. Of course the only provision Schwarzenegger, Austin, and Romero were ever interested in is the charter conversion clause, in which publicly financed schools are handed over to privately run corporations. The law could be most appropriately referred to as the corporate charter trigger, as it has nothing to do with empowering parents.

For his enthusiastic participation in co-authoring the charter market share growing law, Austin was granted a seat on Schwarzenegger's hand picked SBE, which was already stacked with charter school executives, vendors, and other profiteers. Austin, as a highly paid spokesperson for the charter-voucher industry, was a perfect fit, and his job was to insure that the so-called Parent Empower Act be implemented without a hitch, and that both market share and profitable side enterprises of the lucrative charter sector grew to satisfy their investors. Austin was all at once, the bill's author, biggest advocate on the SBE, and the sole stewart of how the regulations were being written, and rest assured he was making them as friendly to charter advocacy groups like his own as he could. There were no cries of conflict of interest then. No astroturf "parents" lodging complaints. No accusations in the mainstream press of ethics violations. No cacophony calling for Austin to recuse himself from the proceedings.

Austin knows a quite a bit about conflicts of interest and ethics violations, he was under investigation by the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission (Case # 2010-36) when he was collecting a check at the City Attorney Office while being a full time charter school advocate (and part time Green Dot Employee) at Los Angeles Parents Union (aka Parent Revolution). He was also using his connections to host closed meetings with his political connections garnered from his City job, like with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

But Austin's own myriad conflicts of interest and ethics violations while on the SBE pale in comparison to his recent transgression. His hypocritical and self serving attacks on Patrica Rucker will look at the more reprehensible in the following section.

Pots Calling the Kettle Black, Austin Illegally Lobbied the SBE

In early March of 2011 an activist showed me footage of Ben Austin speaking at the SBE on behalf of the charter trigger legislation. Bear in mind that by March, Austin and several other of Schwarzenegger's fringe right wing appointees had been swept from the Board by the incoming Governor, and while many charter-voucher industry profiteers remain — like the reprehensible Yvonne Chan — a few of the most egregious members are gone. I knew that former Board members were barred from lobbying at the Board for a period of time, although I thought the span was twenty four months. Astonished that Austin would be so brazen to flout the law and regulations in such a high profile forum, I immediately contacted the State Board of Education and spoke with then employee Regina Wilson.

Wilson confirmed that Austin had indeed spoken and lobbied at the SBE after he had been officially removed from the board. She also informed me that the period they weren't allowed to appear at the Board to lobby was twelve months, rather than what I thought, and that Austin had certainly violated the rules. I told Ms. Wilson I was working on a story, and asked her to get back to me on a few other questions I had, including: "were the other Board members aware of the regulations regarding former Board members lobbying?"

I waited a week for Wilson and called her again, she said she gathering information and would get back to me. I then went on holiday with my wife to visit her family in Korea. When I returned from Daegu, I called Wilson, but was greeted with an answering machine informing me that she was no longer with the SBE [6] and to contact a Ms. Carol Gorman. I called Gorman, discussed the situation with her and was told to expect a call back. There was no call back. After leaving several voicemails, I grew wary of carrying out my investigation verbally and sent Gorman an email on June 10, 2011. Following is her response that contains my original email:

Dear Mr. Skeels:

I am in receipt of your email of this date, and have forwarded it to the attention of our Deputy Executive Director, Patricia de Cos, for her review. Thank you for your patience in this matter.

Sincerely,

Carol K. Gorman
Executive Assistant
California State Board of Education
1430 N Street, Suite 5111
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-0705 Direct
916-319-0175 Fax
cgorman@cde.ca.gov
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert D. Skeels [mailto:rdsathene@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 3:54 PM
To: Carol Gorman
Cc: Superintendent ; Rebecca MacLaren
Subject: Ben Austin at SBE meetings before 12 months completed
Importance: High

Ms. Gorman:

I've spoken with you on the phone and left multiple voice mails about this issue. I was in contact with former SBE employee Regina Wilson prior to that.

I am a freelance education writer in Los Angeles. I have seen video footage of former SBE member Ben Austin speaking at the board in February or March of this year. I am aware of the rule prohibiting former SBE members from lobbying at the SBE for 12 months.

My questions still remain. Are the SBE members aware that Mr. Austin has broken these rules. Will there be disciplinary measure brought against Mr. Austin.

I am about to publish my article about the incident and have expended due diligence trying to obtain answers from the State board of Education. At this point, and I hate to say this, it seem like a cover up. I was hoping a Governor Brown appointed board with be less opaque than that of our reactionary former Governor. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Mr. Austin has violated ethics, and perhaps even the law in what he did. He should be held accountable for his vile actions.

Advocating public education and social justice

Robert D. Skeels

Note she uses the phrase "email of this date," as if that was our first communication, despite having spoken on the phone with me. There's still been no word from Ms. Gorman although I wrote her again on July 8, 2011 requesting a status on the above email.

Ms. Gorman:

Now that Mr. Austin and company have attacked SBE Board Member Rucker, it's imperative that his and his own organization's clear conflicts of interest and violation of SBE rules be brought to light.

It's unfortunate that the SBE is seemingly stonewalling my efforts to expose Austin's malfeasance, and I am somewhat taken aback by the intransigence of the board regarding this matter. Does Mr. Austin still have this much influence that this entire affair is being swept under the rug? I'm of of the mind to publish all of our correspondence publicly if there is no response on this.

Robert D. Skeels

Clearly a cover up is taking place. The Board is not only well aware that Ben Austin has violated the rules, but seem oblivious that his connections to the well financed charter voucher industry and their plutocrat backers provide him with immunity to consequences for his actions. Meanwhile he sicks his dogs on current SBE members like Patrica Rucker with impunity. Moreover the SBE members are still clearly pawns of the deep pocket charter school sector as evidenced by SBE President Michael Kirst's disgusting pro-privatization comments during last week's vote to ratify the clean up of the corporate charter trigger law deceptively named Parent Empowerment Act.

The hypocrisy of Ben Austin and his school privation organization claiming Rucker has a conflict of interest is staggering. I like to fancy myself an aspiring wordsmith, but lack the vocabulary to describe the scope of this reprehensible, repugnant, and revolting incident in the light of Austin's ongoing unconscionable behavior. The charter industry has a real gem in Austin, since no lie is unspeakable and no scruples are necessary in his orbit. Like I said in my email above "Mr. Austin has violated ethics, and perhaps even the law in what he did. He should be held accountable for his vile actions."

The only way we can stop these crooks and charlatans is to continue real, grass roots parent and community organizing. They have dozens of paid charter drive "organizers" in the field preying on parents looking for answers to systemic problems. We need to expose the Ben Austins, Gabe Roses, and Pat DeTemples for the reactionary agents of privatization they are. We need to point out that the narrative of parents versus teachers has been forced on us by the same Wall Street hucksters who just swindled us all, and are now tricking us into blaming each other. The real battle is communities versus corporations, but as long as charlatans like Ben Austin and Scott Walker push working people into blaming other working people, the longer the corporations will continue to win.



_____
NOTES
[1] Austin's eldest child, already a preschooler, will probably be starting Kindergarden this fall. Listening to Austin's perfidious rhetoric would lead one to think that she's been enrolled for over decade.

[2] By all accounts Austin first took a consulting position (paying $94,475) with LAPU quite unwillingly, and only after persistent persuasion by his close friend the businessman Marco Petruzzi. Once Austin recognized how lucrative and politically expedient it was to be working for the Broad/Gates/Walton Triumvirate did he, ever the opportunist, agree to take the Executive Director position. Petruzzi is still on the Parent Revolution Board, having ousted Steve Barr from both the organizations Barr founded.

[3] One Tujunga/Sunland area parent I spoke with called Grant "girthsome" and made several other rotund references, but I felt it more appropriate to use the word imposing despite the chance to use my favorite literary devices to follow loathsome.

[4] Green Dot Charter Corporation and Parent Revolution didn't break ties until the Summer of 2010. Until then Green Dot paid LAPU/Parent Revolution's rent and many other expenses. They were still receiving money from the Broad/Gates/Walton Triumvirate, but not nearly as much as they do now. To wit, the bigots comprising the Walton Family Foundation dumped a half a million into Austin's school privatization efforts last year.

[5] "Feeder" schools comprise the school from which the next classes of students at a school will potentially come from. In the example of a middle school, all the attendance boundary elementary schools would be considered its feeder schools. Never mind the fact that those families may move, choose to send their kids to parochial, charter or other private schools, their signatures are as good as gold under the so-called Parent Empowerment Act. Inequitable and unfair that a community's public school could be turned over to a private corporation with only a tiny minority of the community making the decisions? Sure, but the law was to build charter school market share, not empower parents or communities in any way.

[6] So that the rest of the press can reluctantly (given their aversion to public schools and love affair with the profiteers in the charter sector) verify my story, the number I was using to contact Regina Wilson (916) 319-0693. Now that number has a message that says "I'm no longer with the State Board of Education, if you need assistance please call Carol Gorman at (916) 319-0705.

A Review of Alexander Russo's 'Stray Dogs, Saints, and Saviors'

Anyone in search of a rather level-headed look at school turnarounds should check out Alexander Russo’s Stray Dogs, Saints, and Saviors. It’s both an enjoyable read and highly interesting – I’d place it in the rather small education drama-slash-documentary genre.

The book is not a puff piece, nor does it leave out criticisms. I say that as someone who generally is quite skeptical of charter management organizations, outsourcing, and reforms that deal almost exclusively with school-level changes.

I should also note that I play a very small (minuscule) role in some of the drama that unfolds in the book.

Readers beware: I may say some things here that you disagree with, or that you’re surprised to hear.

Let’s start with Steve Barr, because that’s a fitting way to start a conversation about the book’s real story: the school “turnaround” at Locke High School. Also, I think it’s better to deal with my small role right away and then focus on more important topics.

Honestly, I have a good deal of respect for Steve Barr. However, I have an equal amount of concern when it comes to his tactics and rhetoric, and I seriously question whether or not his strategy (and the strategy of other CMO operators) will lead to serious improvements. I think he means well, and, to some degree, he’s right about certain topics. Although I’ve never met him, he’s clearly an engaging fellow, charismatic, and probably someone that would be great fun to have a beer with (incidentally, that’s where Barr spent some of the money in question: drinking with teachers). His rhetoric and search for the spotlight seem to undermine the ideas that some of us would find more reasonable.

It’s fitting to start with Barr because he’s been practically synonymous with Green Dot since the organization’s early years. Barr eventually kind of departed Green Dot and started another organization, Green Dot American, now known as "Future is Now Schools". Marco Petruzzi became the lead man (although he'd had a significant role at Green Dot for a while), and the book makes it sound like it wasn’t all roses between those two:

“’That was Steve,’ said Petruzzi, who had since his arrival at Green Dot been dismayed at how many times he had to swoop in and clean up one of Barr’s messes or make good on one of his unanticipated commitments.” (p 170-71)

Ouch.

On October 30, 2009, I posted an entry on this blog that noted a curious statement in Green Dot’s 990 form. At the time, I didn’t know what it meant, but I did know that it suggested CEO Steve Barr did something that was questionable. That was the full extent of my knowledge of the situation. (In hindsight, my comments were a bit too dramatic, and probably didn't reflect what actually happened.) Only later – after a few brief emails with Russo, by reading a few postings on his blog, and reading this book – did I learn about how Barr spent the money. He twice used a Green Dot credit card to pay for personal expenses – but promptly paid back that money the following day. (Not a wise move, but not exactly all that scandalous.) He went out with some teachers and paid for drinks, which certainly isn’t a wise move (nonprofits can’t buy alcohol with their funds). There were also "isolated instances of expenses that were more extravagant than they needed to be for a nonprofit," according to Green Dot Chairman Shane Martin.

I still wonder why Green Dot included the note in their 990. It seems unnecessary to me. Were they required to note it, or was it included for some other reason?

The real substance of this story, however, is whether or not this will be a promising way to improve schools in America’s toughest neighborhoods. Keep in mind that the Locke turnaround required many millions in additional funding, and it’s unclear if there will be lasting improvements. Is the school better than it was before? I don’t think too many people would say it’s worse now than before, but I don’t think anyone can rightly claim it’s a miracle or even a turnaround. As Russo says, “Expecting big things immediately is understandable but ultimately destructive,” and I think he’s right: judging the effectiveness of this turnaround in year one isn’t really fair. Baby steps forward are appropriate in the first year, as are some baby steps backwards. So, while I’m quite skeptical, it is still worth knowing how this experiment works out in the long run.

Russo spends most of the book talking about the people involved at Locke: teachers, administrators, and students. (I do wish there'd been a bit more about parents and families, however.) Their stories range from inspiring to depressing, and they all add to the nuance of the book. He also spends a good deal of time explaining the problems Green Dot faced, and the ways they were and were not prepared for the dramatic change. This on-the-ground stuff kept me engaged just as much as the discussion of 30,000-foot issues.

The Locke experiment may prove to be an incremental improvement over the much-disliked “status quo” (disliked by everyone, I might add). It makes me quite nervous that our Secretary of Education says he thinks Barr and Green Dot have “cracked the code” considering there have been such small improvements to date. Although I’m quite skeptical, I try to remain open to the fact that certain reforms I may not favor could lead to positive changes.

If this doesn’t prove to be a promising way to turn around schools, what are other options that can be considered? I found myself thinking about that question as I finished the book, and it’s a question at the heart of many criticisms of the current reform movement: If (when?) the “evaluate teachers with test scores,” "test a lot more," and “open lots of charters” craze ultimately proves to be unsuccessful, what changes could actually make big improvements?

New Market Tax Credits, or How to Shake the "Public" Education Money Tree

Be sure not to miss Juan Gonzalez's excellent reporting on the use of New Market Tax Credits by charter school construction companies (DemocracyNow! and Daily News).

And, since I just can't resist leaving this out, it should be noted that Dennis Bakke and his crew of cronies at the Imagine Schools teamed up with Citi Community Capital to bring a new school to the DC area using NMTCs. Cha-ching!

Green Dot and KIPP took advantage of NMTCs in California, but the company they used, ExED, is merely a non-profit lubing the finances for their hostile takeover of public education. Certain people know how to shake the money tree - but they'll only put it to use for the privatized version of public schools.

Green Dot Flameout in L.A.

At Green Dot Public Schools, Inc., the only things public are the public dollars that go, without public oversight, to feed the corporate welfare scammers who intend to bleed out public schools. From Howard Blume at the LATimes:

Green Dot Public Schools, a leading charter school operator, is shutting down a campus because of low enrollment, financial pressures and subpar performance, officials confirmed Monday.

The action prompted a daylong student protest Monday at Animo Justice Charter High School, south of downtown Los Angeles.

The closure marks a first for locally based and nationally recognized Green Dot, which has 19 area campuses and one in New York City.

The nonprofit Green Dot opened five independently run, publicly funded charters, including Animo Justice, four years ago, near long-struggling Jefferson High School in South Los Angeles.

Green Dot founder Steve Barr first sought to take over Jefferson itself in the wake of racially tinged brawls in 2005.

Rebuffed by the Los Angeles Unified School District, he opted to compete for Jefferson students.

Jefferson's enrollment has stabilized, and its smaller, more manageable enrollment is contributing to improved student achievement. . . . .

. . . . The school will close at the end of the academic year.

The five Green Dot charters have registered higher test scores than Jefferson, but now they face enrollment competition from other charter schools as well as from a new district high school nearby. And another L.A. Unified high school is under construction.

Green Dot's financial model relies on philanthropic subsidies until it can build enrollment, one grade at a time, to 560 students. Animo Justice never quite hit its annual enrollment targets, accumulating a $1 million deficit, said chief executive Marco Petruzzi.

Shrinking state funding also tightened the financial problems. . . .

Can Ben Austin Speak for Parent Revolution without Speaking for Green Dot?

There are legitimate concerns these days that education outfits have sometimes hidden or unclear relationships with other groups, many of them in the nonprofit sector. This brings up questions of governance, transparency, and other issues of public policy. For instance, should people employed by a charter school have to openly and publicly disclose their financial ties when advising/advocating/consulting on behalf of a different non-profit?

From the Daily News (Los Angeles):

After five years of getting nowhere with Los Angeles Unified officials, fed-up parents in Sunland-Tujunga are using a new state law to force change at a long-troubled middle school.

Parents and community members say problems at Mount Gleason Middle School, which has been on a federal list of under-performing campuses for a dozen years, go beyond failing test scores.

"There is an unsafe atmosphere at this school that is spilling over into the community...," said Lydia Grant, a resident and parent of a former Mount Gleason student. "People are tired of it and we want to see change."

Thanks to new legislation, known as the "parent trigger" law, they're able to do something about it.

A few things should be clear: parents absolutely should be involved in education. Also, questioning turnarounds or resisting charterization doesn't mean you think everything is great and dandy. Everyone wants change, but the means and ends (undetermined, I might add) that capitalize on quick-win scenarios in hopes of getting something bigger started may have consequences that would not occur if we could make a long-term commitments, generate genuine community input, and provide adequate resources for public schools. Our culture of quick-fix solutions makes the parent trigger an appealing option, but this solution to saving public schools (which some hope will sweep the nation) is as likely so succeed as the latest diet craze. If these so-called turnarounds are anything like their corporate counterparts in the private sector, most will fail and very few will succeed. I have a hard time believe that should qualify as sound public policy.

Parent involvement is great, but simply voting to turn your school over to a private operator seems like a risky venture. There are other reasons people are raising concerns. Also from theDaily News article:

Some administrators questioned whether the motivation to have the school taken over was spurred by genuine parent concern, or outward pressure from community groups.

"One thing is for residents of Mount Gleason to initiate this trigger," said Jose Rodriguez, an LAUSD director for the school.

"But it's another thing for an outside group to come in and encourage parents to use this trigger law."

Perhaps Rodriguez was referring to the Parent Revolution, the Los Angeles group that created the idea of a parent trigger, initially to be used in LAUSD.

Ben Austin, executive director of the Parent Revolution, said after the district passed a watered-down version of the trigger, he decided to take the fight to Sacramento.

"The whole purpose of this law is to give parents power," Austin said.

"Parents are in the best position to make decisions about what's good for their kids and their future... Why shouldn't they get more control?"

The Parent Revolution, which has close ties to Green Dot public schools, a large charter management organization in Los Angeles, is working with parents around Mount Gleason and believes that the school could be among the first to be reformed with the new law.

However Austin denied playing anything but an advisory role in the parents' decision to organize.

"We're not orchestrating.... It's very patronizing to think that we would be making these kinds of decisions."

Shouldn't Austin also mention that he pulled in $94,475 in 2008 as a private "consultant" for Green Dot? It all makes me wonder: is Green Dot a candidate for running the school in the near future? [Austin, at least to my knowledge, isn't breaking any laws by doing this, but it might be something that should be regulated or monitored]

It's not only Austin that deserves to be looked at with a skeptical eye: the Daily News should inform their readers that Austin also receives compensation from Green Dot. It's only fair that Austin shows all the hats he wears instead of hiding one behind his back when questioned by a reporter.

Barr Resigns as Chairman of Green Dot, Going National

Green Dot founder Steve Barr has resigned as chairman of the charter chain. Alexander Russo claims Barr will go national by starting Green Dot America this coming January, an idea mentioned in the infamous New Yorker article. Interestingly, Russo also reports on the $50,866 Barr owes Green Dot, allegedly for "wining and dining teachers and funders," and Barr also claims the audit is not connected to his departure. Barr's announcement isn't really a departure - he'll retain a position on the executive board and become chairman emeritus.

The Dailiy Breeze claims a Green Dot announcement said Barr will focus on "broad education policy issues."

Would it be fair to say "Broad education policy issues," too?

How'd Steve Barr Spend $50,866?

Check this out, right from Green Dot's 2007 990 tax form:

It might be hard to read, but between 2004 and 2007 Barr was erroneously reimbursed $50,866 by Green Dot. How was this money spent? We'll never know. Barr didn't take this money for himself - but why would he? He's pulling in over 200k per year.

Looks like Mr. Barr did what most high-paid CEOs do: mismanage funds. We'll never know how this money is spent - and Green Dot and Mr. Barr are happy to have it that way.

Duncan Advocates Use of Innovation Fund to Advance Corporate Interests

Teach For America has been around almost twenty years, and in recent years TFA has been charged with readying Ivy League missionaries for their larger roles as quisling CEOs in charge of the corporate welfare charter schools that are planned to replace urban public schools. The KIPP brainwashing cults could not operate without TFA's constant supply of two-year temps, where their creepy cheer has proven a boon for impoverished urban schools that cannot hold qualified teachers to the parrot teaching/learning scripts and the behavioral catechisms aimed to psychologically contain the next urban generation. Here are the members of the latest 10 million tax-deductible dollar club of supporters for TFA:

The Broad Foundation Michael & Susan Dell Foundation Doris & Donald Fisher Fund Rainwater Charitable Funds

Around since 1999, Green Dot Public Schools, Inc. is an outfit run by Eli Broad's lapdog, Steve Barr, an aggressive foul-mouthed pol who has the political savvy to do the paid astroturfing that offers the impression that Broad's corporate charters grow from the grass up, rather than exploding from the corporate bombers down. See Sharon Higgins's excellent dissection of the Broad-Barr thing in Los Angeles, which has received tens of millions in tax-deductible dollars from Broad alone, not to mention the other multiple millions from the venture philanthropy industry. From the NYTimes, 2007:

Green Dot is part of a new wave of nonprofit, high-performing charter chains that have grown rapidly with philanthropic financing, in Green Dot’s case especially from the Broad and the Bill & Melinda Gates foundations. Others include the KIPP Schools, in 18 states, and Achievement First, with 12 schools in New York and New Haven, said Ted Mitchell, head of the NewSchools Venture Fund, a San Francisco group that works with several chains.

And so now with the same gang from the Broad Foundation and the Gates Foundation running the U. S. Department of Education, it is not in the least surprising that the Dunc would be promoting two of the philanthrocapitalists' favorite projects, TFA and Green Dot Public Schools, Inc., as the leading potential recipients of the newest pot of tax dollar gold worth $650 million. Wall Street stimulus model on the small potatoes scale of education funding:

. . . . Federal officials said the Investing in Innovation Fund would be distributed in three categories. Small development grants of up to $5 million will support new, unproven ideas that seem worth exploring, they said. Validation grants of up to $30 million will support existing programs that have shown evidence that they can work. Scale-up grants of up to $50 million will go to programs that have developed a strong track record for improving student achievement, the officials said.

Congress approved financing for the innovation fund almost as an asterisk when it approved $100 billion in federal education aid under the stimulus program in February. But Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says it could be a powerful lever for improving achievement.

In a speech last month, Mr. Duncan said programs that might qualify for innovation fund financing included Teach for America, the nonprofit organization that recruits elite college graduates for two years of teaching in hard-to-staff schools, and Green Dot, a nonprofit charter school organization with headquarters in California.

In a conference call on Tuesday, Mr. Duncan invited applicants to “show us their best evidence that their programs will boost student learning.” . . . .

Show us your test scores!

How Green Dot Bought Signatures and Support

Posted at YouTube:

Maria Guadalupe Mena of Garfield High School:
"Community members stated they were offered monetary compensation [by Green Dot] in exchange for their signature on a petition."

"The day of the 'Public School Choice' vote, Parent Revolution and Parent Union representatives informed us they were court mandated to support the rally to work off their community service".

"We're unhappy that reform decisions have been dictated to our community by billionaire philanthropists [who]...are funding...Inner City Struggle, Parent Revolution, Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles Learning Collaboratives to push their corporate agenda onto the schools."

Green Dot Public Schools, Inc.: Don't Tase Me, Bro

If the KIPP brainwashing camps are the cultural replacement solution for brown and poor middle schoolers, the choice among the oligarchs for the high school reform school model of containment is the Broad/Barr invention, Green Dot Public Schools, Inc. Caroline Grannan has a response to the recent Barr profile in the New Yorker, which discusses, among Barr's many manly exploits, last fall's Green Dot takeover of John Locke High School from LAUSD. My favorite clip from Grannan's piece:

Post-takeover [at John Locke], the article reports: "Green Dot [has] blanketed the school with guards from a private security firm, club-bouncer burly, carrying handguns and pepper spray. ... Guards have occasionally displayed a heavy hand. Twice this year, they pepper-sprayed students..."

I wonder what public commotion would ensue if private security guards hired by a public school repeatedly pepper-sprayed white middle-class students – but oh well, these are only poor minorities. The outcry would probably be considerable if the guards were vendors for LAUSD, too, but charter-school Teflon protects Green Dot.

And I’ll bet my firstborn that if Green Dot owns up to two pepper-spraying incidents, there have been far more. Gosh, how idyllic. And critics call KIPP the "Kids in Prison Program" -- Green Dot is mounting a challenge for that title. I know; the supporters’ view is: whatever works. Don’t tase me, bro!
.
This snippet also caught my eye: [Barr] "started a citywide group called the Los Angeles Parents Union, an activist alternative to the Parent-Teacher Association, in the hope of mobilizing foot soldiers for Green Dot's escalating war against the district. He even put a school-board member on his payroll – ‘a mole,’ Barr said -- to report back on closed meetings."

"Escalating war against the district." Gee, that’s good for our kids and schools. And is it actually legal to pay a school board member to reveal information about closed sessions? Whatever works.

If this experiment succeeds, great, and we’ll all learn a lot. Perhaps this will be the one that will transform urban public education. Will it show us that what all our schools need is to be blanketed with burly private security guards wielding handguns and pepper spray? And wage escalating wars against our school districts? What a cheering scenario. Whatever works.

Connecting All the Green Dots

Reggie Dylan has an important piece of work at Dissident Voice. Here is a small taste:

. . . . In many ways Locke High School concentrates the utterly failed education system that “serves” the oppressed people in the urban cores of this country. In 2005 only 332 Locke students graduated from a class that, as ninth-graders, had 1,318. Only 143 students qualified for admission to the University of California and Cal State University systems. In March, 2005 a 15-year-old girl died after being shot in front of the school.

Even before the fight at Locke became national news, the L.A. school district had signed a contract agreeing to turn complete control of Locke over to a private charter school organization known as Green Dot Public Schools. (A charter school is a public school run by a private business or organization.) This isn’t the first charter school in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). And it’s not the first of Green Dot’s charter schools in L.A.; they already operate twelve small charter schools. But this is the first time that any charter operation has been given sole responsibility for providing the public education that high school students receive in a section of a major urban ghetto.

This high-profile experiment in privatization is being looked to by the powers-that-be as a potential model for a radical transformation of the public education system in the most oppressed communities of the proletariat, especially Blacks and Latinos, not only throughout L.A., but nationwide. The Los Angeles Times wrote in a recent editorial, “[I]f it succeeds, Green Dot will have created a blueprint for public schools.”1

And a lot of people at Locke—parents, the teachers and administrators who stayed on, many students, and people all over—are hoping that Green Dot will actually be the model for “closing the achievement gap between black and Hispanic students and their white and Asian peers” that the sales pitch of the charter school movement promises.

Green Dot aims to produce a small number of students from inner city schools who will help fill the need for “knowledge workers” in this society—people who work with information, such as engineers, analysts, marketers, etc. And for those who do make it into the “knowledge worker” strata, to serve as a political and ideological force to shore up this system of exploitation and inequality—including by providing a basis to claim that “anyone” can make it in this system; a cruel lie when in fact, for millions and millions of youth in the inner cities, their so-called “opportunities” are the streets and a likely early death, prison, or the military. . ..