Commissioner's search (if you couldn't read the photos)

Appointed by Chair Paul Sagan to the screening committee is:
Voting members (current members of the Board)
himself
Secretary Jim Peyser
James Morton
Margaret McKenna
Katherine Craven

Non-voting members
Vanessa Calderon-Rosado (former member of the Board, CEO of Inquilinos Boricuas en Accion)
Sydney Chaffee (National Teacher of the Year, Codman Academy Charter School)
Alex Cortez (Reimagine School Systems Fund--New Profit; Board of MATCH Charter and Innovate Public Schools)
Paul Dakin (retired superintendent, Revere Public Schools)
Marcia Faucher (adjunct professor, Roger Williams University; former New Bedford principal)
Robert Gittens (Executive Director, Cambridge Family and Children Services; former Boston School Committee member)
Sheila Harrity (superintendent, Montachusett Regional Vocational Technical School; Vice Chair, Board of Higher Ed)
Matt Hills (Newton School Committee; he's also a managing director at LLM Capital)
Beverly Holmes (on Springfield Empowerment Zone board; former member of the Board of Ed)
Linda Noonan (of Mass Business Alliance for Education)
Mary Walachy (of the Davis Foundation; member of the Early Ed Board)

I've tried to give a relevant link as warranted; if there are others, send them along 

Congratulations to Newark!

They fought big money, and last night, they won.
Best coverage I've read today is from Mother Crusader.
Believe in Newark.

More on the zombie education bill

I took some more time on the zombie education bill  (H.3984) filed last week by Rep. Peisch, and I have a few more thoughts (in addition to my first post on this here):

I ran through this so fast last time that I didn't take the time to point out: guess who gets to pick the Level 3 "challenge" schools that need turnaround plans? The Commissioner!

Now, there may be those in the Commonwealth under the impression that Commissioner Chester needs even more power over local schools, but I have yet to meet them. Meaning no disrespect at all to the Commissioner, the removal of authority from local districts has not had great results, and I think that the Board of Education has been coming to that realization; the Commissioner was closely questioned at their last meeting as to what differences there were between the Level 4 plans, that had apparently failed, and the Level 5 plans for the same schools that were being proposed. Having the state determine that yet another group of schools needs yet more state intervention is not a good recipe for success.

And here is the bit that I think few people realize: while we like to think that the declarations of underperforming and such are all very scientific and mathematical...they aren't. And I was going to go into this here, but frankly, it needs its own post, which will be coming up next.

The big thing on the Level 4 schools, though, which I am sure no one wants to talk about, was the funding. The reason we don't have more Level 4 schools is funding: extended day (which was required), additional training, more staffing, and the other things that we were required in one way or another to do don't come free, and the state has a tough time requiring them if they don't add funding. It seems as though "challenge" schools, these...shall we call them "Level 3.5" schools?...will need to do these additional things, go through the upheaval and such, and without any funding.

So while this keeps the 4% cap on schools getting state intervention ("challenge, underperforming, or chronically underperfoming," or the new Level 3, plus Level 4 and 5), you're looking at some big push without funding to support it.

And, they will no doubt be in districts that are getting hit by the expansion of the charter cap, as well, so they will have greater concentration of high need students with even less funding.

In digging through the language (and particularly the replacement language), I also found the following:

• This bill is preparing the groundwork for PARCC: in several places, the language "or any successor statewide assessment system approved by the board under section 1I of this chapter” is added after "MCAS."

• The turnarounds of these Level 3.5 "challenge" schools can require all teachers to reapply for their positions.

• The turnaround of these schools allows for funding by private foundations, including to increase salaries at that school.

• The budget of "chronically underperforming" schools are to be available to the school's receiver (if appointed) without further vote of the School Committee. Good-bye quarterly reports! Further, such a school may accept and expend grants received without public acceptance of the School Committee or approval of the superintendent. Good-bye public transparency! (that's section 16, if you're keeping track)

• Additionally, in Level 5 districts, the Commissioner can have the Secretary of Administration and Finance appoint a "chief procurement officer," which would seem to subvert the financing, procurement, and distribution structure of the district. While Level 5 districts can be under a state receiver, this was explicit in anything previously.

• The bill dabbles into the MSBA's authority as well, saying that any building for which MSBA has provided funding that is taken out of education use are still okay (and can still be reimbursed) as long as the building is returned to use as a school building within two years (under current law, it could do this, but it doesn't have to). 

• Charter schools can wiggle around the current 18% cap of a district's Net School Spending if they throw all kids in the district in a lottery OR they're creating an alternative program. Same problem as ever with these, though: no teeth, no enforcement. That can raise the charter cap in districts to 23% of a school district's net school spending.

I would also note the following:
State Auditor Suzanne Bump is due to come out with a report on charter schools later this spring (no one's clear on exactly when). We don't know what it's going to say yet, but moving ahead on any action around creating more or expanding those we have is silly when a comprehensive report is on the horizon. The Legislature should absolutely not move ahead of the auditor's report.

This bill remains in House Ways and Means. I would urge you to contact your state senator and state representative if any or all of the above concern you.

The Joyce Foundation in Chicago

This is another of those "follow the spaghetti" articles on influence and money in education. This time, it's on the Joyce Foundation in Chicago.
Also helps if you're wondering where our new Secretary of Commerce came from. 

Broad to NJ: you can have the funding if Christie stays in office

The recent forced disclosure of the terms of a grant received by New Jersey from the Broad Foundation had some interesting terms included. Among them:

• Chris Christie must remain as governor
• The number of "high quality" charter schools must go up by 50%
• If the state is forced to make the grant public, "it must give the foundation advance notice of such disclosure 'so that TBF may contest the disclosure and or/seek a protective order.'"

The Education Law Center, which forced the publication of the grant, is calling for an investigation.

Samuel Gompers on public education

Today in honor of Labor Day, here's Samuel Gompers on public education:

In order to be consistent with democratic ideals, public schools must meet the needs of all. They must fit not only for the administraive, directive positions in life and for the professions, but they also must meet the needs of those who by their creative labor powers and the coordination of their minds and muscles give existence to the ideas and purposes that are in the minds of those who control industry and commerce.

And in a bit that looks like prophecy:

 Your organization has officially gone on record as opposed to all such efforts to dominate the public schools of this country, whether exercised by so-called philanthropic organizations, foundations, or any other agency. The organized labor movement is with you in that purpose. Our experiences with the exploiting forces in the industrial and commerical field make us keen to detect them when exercised in other relationsh of life. We have opposed from the beginning efforts of these "foundations to secure legislation granting htem the right to incorporate under federal laws and thus dominate our whole educational system. We have called attention to efforts of these foundations to lay corrupting hands up on the foundationheads of information, knowledge, and education. We have disclosed where they have laid violent hands upon government institutions and have attempted to form an insidious alliance nimnally with government agencies but in reality to exploit the work done.

Nothing new under the sun. Happy Labor Day!
h/t AMPS

They talked about it

sorry, all, but the title ("Fight Club") of this one is a set-up


You know how you suspected that all of the big money "ed reformers" were actually all working together and talking to each other?
And then you thought, "Naaah, that's just being paranoid."

Nope, not paranoid:

The PIE Network emerged, according to executive director Kubach, because of “the growing realization that the arena of state policymaking matters a lot for school reform and you can’t just do everything at the federal level. We needed to connect the conversation in Washington with a coalition of different kinds of groups at the state level—business leaders, civic leaders, and grassroots constituents.” The 34 organizations in the network operate in 23 states and Washington, D.C. Network members include affiliates of Stand for Children and 50CAN, business groups like the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, the Oklahoma Business and Education Coalition, and Colorado Succeeds, and civic groups like Advance Illinois and the League of Education Voters (Washington). The PIE Network is also supported by five “policy partners,” which span the ideological spectrum but agree on the network’s reform commitments: Center for American Progress, Center on Reinventing Public Education, Education Sector, National Council on Teacher Quality, and Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Like many ERAOs, PIE Network is funded by the big three (Walton, Gates, and Broad) along with the Joyce and Stuart foundations.

And yes, you absolutely should read the rest, keeping in mind that Education Next is not, shall we say, an impartial source.

"You don't negotiate with death"

h/t to Diane Ravitch for pointing towards this post, coming out of Chicago (where the stand-off between the Mayor and the teachers' union continues): 

Pro-privatizers have done a good job of conflating being against their version of reform (e.g., being with parents and teachers) as being pro-status quo. It's the surest way to keep yourself out of the education policy job market to be on the side of the straw man status quo.
Notoriously funded by tiny groups of immensely wealthy people, with no control by or buy-in from communities, no democratic structures that allow for parent participation, and in fact nothing other than the whims of their millionaire funders, these groups have unilaterally decided they deserve a spot at the negotiating table. They bought their button, in other words.

"Hired Guns on Astroturf"

Ed reformers liven up their websites with photographs of happy-looking school children, many of them minorities: the kids are busy at work or smiling into the camera. Meanwhile, their self-appointed benefactors ally with politicians who are slashing school budgets, cutting social services and benefits, gutting jobs programs, undercutting health-care reform, pummeling public sector unions, and passing laws that make it harder for the children’s parents to vote. The disconnect between what ed reformers claim to be doing for low-income children and what they actually bring about boggles the mind.

Dissent magazine this month: read it.

Hey, guess who's now a PAC?

Stand for Children!
Not only that, they've now joined forces (check the addresses) with our old friends, Democrats for Education Reform (hereafter, DFER). You'll remember that this comes (not coincidentally) at exactly the same time as Stand's atrocious ballot initiative, tying all decisions around teachers to student test scores (it's called, with the ed reformers' genius for Orwellian language* "Great Teachers Great Schools").
Gee, you think they're planning on spending some money?



*and totally lack of attention to punctuation. But I digress.

Not so fast, Mr. Zuckerberg, Mayor Booker, and Governor Christie!

It appears that the Governor does not have the legal power to grant the mayor any power--let alone executive power--over the Newark Public Schools:

David G. Sciarra, the director of the Education Law Center, a Newark-based organization that represents poor urban schoolchildren in a lengthy equitable-funding lawsuit against the state, said that no New Jersey law permits a mayor to run schools, and that approval by the state legislature would be required for such a change. Nearly all the state's 600 school districts have elected school boards; a handful have boards appointed by mayors.

In addition, a 5-year-old law governing state intervention in struggling school districts vests authority over those districts in the governor's appointed state commissioner of education, not the governor or a mayor, say experts and current and former lawmakers.
"There is no provision for the mayor to have that kind of control. The [state] commissioner [of education] is really the one who is given that authority by the law," said Craig A. Stanley, a former Democratic state assemblyman who co-authored the 2005 law...

Paul L. Tractenberg, a Rutgers University law professor who is an expert on education law, called the Christie-Booker proposal "an effort to totally blur the lines" of authority over Newark schools.

"It's a basic, established principle of law that you can only delegate the authority you actually have, and I don't think the governor has the authority to operate the Newark schools," he said.

The response of Derrell J. Bradford, the executive director of Excellent Education for Everyone, co-founded by Booker?
"These people are punks."

$100 million is a lot of money

about a third of the Worcester Public Schools' annual budget

The news that Mark Zuckerman, co-founder of Facebook, is reportedly donating $100 million towards (note the preposition) the Newark Public Schools has lit up the blogsphere. The donation will be made (where else?) live on Oprah. On Friday...the day The Social Network, which is apparently rather unflattering in its portrayal of Zuckerman, opens in at the New York Film Festival (it opens nationwide next week).
A few things to note in this:

• the money isn't going directly to the Newark schools. It's starting a new foundation which will work with the schools
• while there's ties between Governor Christie and Mayor Booker of Newark on standardized testing (pro), charter school expansion (pro), and tying teacher evaluation to student test scores (pro)--your basic "edeform" package--Newark is different from many of the pushing-for-school-control strong mayor cities in that Newark has been under state control for 15 years (with, by most accounts, no improvement). Christie is giving Booker more of a say in the public schools, while not at all increasing public control.
• there's some talk they may hire Michelle Rhee when/if she leaves D.C.
  

Eduwork looks at political ties.
Jim Horn quits Facebook.

"Scheming" in Detroit

I've previously posted about Robert Bobb (Broad class of 2005), the current emergency manager of the Detroit Public Schools. In hearings around some of Bobb's actions, the School Committee's attorney had some strong words about what Bobb has been up to:

School board attorney George Washington says Bobb cooperated with private foundations and charter school backers to draft a plan that calls for a mayoral takeover, and for replacing traditional schools with charter schools.

"Somebody who comes in as an emergency financial manager should not be scheming behind the back of the people to overturn a referendum that the people spoke on only two years ago," said Washington.

From the Detroit Free Press:

A more contentious portion focused on a citywide education plan released earlier this year at the Skillman Foundation with the support of Bobb, several charter school operators, Detroit Mayor Dave Bing and community foundations. Backers met in "boot camp" sessions to map the plan.

Bobb said he never told the school board he was participating in talks and he didn't invite them.

The plan calls for opening 40 new schools, shutting failing ones and raising academic standards. It also advocates for mayoral control for the district, essentially eliminating the school board.

And there's money involved according to the Lansing State Journal:

Washington also alleged Bobb accepted supplemental salary offers from foundations active in the planning meetings.

Bobb denied soliciting any extra money for attending the meetings, but said he was aware of salary-related discussions between the foundations and the governor's office.

"How the funds are arriving, from what foundations or whatever sources is not my responsibility," Bobb testified.

Watch Buffalo

Buffalo, New York goes to the poll tomorrow to elect a school board. The so-called "ed reform" crowd has gotten involved in this one:

Education Reform Now has identified three candidates it believes would support its agenda, which includes increasing the number of charter schools and linking teacher compensation to performance.

The group's financial support appears likely to eclipse the money spent by the other two key players in the race, the Buffalo Teachers Federation and the Buffalo Niagara Partnership. Each of those groups estimated they would be spending about $10,000 this year, although final tallies will not be publicly disclosed for several weeks...

"It's forcing a lot of reform issues," he said. "This is the time it's got to be a really robust discussion. This may be our last chance to save public education. This is an important opportunity to try to push a progressive education agenda."

The group, which is closely tied to Democrats for Education Reform, has a number of individual backers who have asked not to be named until the group is required to disclose the information to the Internal Revenue Service, Williams said. Education Reform Now also has been active recently in Colorado, Rhode Island, New Jersey and other states.

Williams said his group selected the Buffalo candidates based largely on Internet research and recommendations from people it has worked with locally. An attorney advised the group not to contact any of the candidates, to avoid jeopardizing the spending's categorization as independent expenditures, he said.

Progressive education agenda? From donors who refused to be identified until after the election? On an ideology that does not educate all children?

Watch Buffalo.

Is public education a disaster?

Not so much.

Worrying trend

Here's a worrying trend as put forward here in the proposed D.C. teachers' contract:

The base salary raises and performance pay initiative are funded via nearly $65 million in private donations gathered by the D.C. Public Education Fund---$10 million from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation; $10 million from the Broad Foundation; $19.5 million from the Robertson Foundation, and $25 million from the Walton Family Foundation. The money, according to documents, is devoted to the "recruitment, retention and rewarding of quality teachers."

Notably absent from that list is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has taken a keen interest in urban school reform and has developed ties with Rhee. One of the documents obtained by LL addresses its absence thusly: "The Gates Foundation has been incredibly generous, and, like all other funders, is donating substantial resources to a singular effort. The Gates Foundation is currently supporting innovations in teacher professional development such as the online platform, which is currently being planned, that will allow for personalized training for individual teachers."

As yet unaddressed: what happens in 2012, when the contract expires. Do the foundations have any ongoing commitment to funding DCPS, or would the city have to make up the difference, or would teachers face the possibility of a pay cut?

Also as yet unaddressed: to whom do these foundations answer, exactly? If a local school committee spends public funds in a way that does not line up with public priorities, the public not only can complain; they can vote that person out of office. How, precisely, does one fire these organizations if one does not agree with their priorities?