The Total Neoliberal Misrepresentation of the Recent History of Indianapolis K12 Education

Is a total neoliberal misrepresentation coming to K12 Education in a public district near you?

A recent article in the pro-charter, pro-neoliberal “magazine,” called Education Next, is a thorough misrepresentation of the recent history of Indianapolis K12 education (see the article at https://www.educationnext.org/hoosier-way-good-choices-for-all-indianapolis/).  I know because, as a university professor and a community activist, I have spent the last seven years working against the pro-charter, pro-neoliberal efforts in Indianapolis, mainly through the IPS Community Coalition, a citywide grassroots organization, and through an activist research group of doctoral students, community members, and university faculty.  Below, I am going to point out ten ways this Education Next “story” is distorted and deceptive.

  1. The real cause of the “schooling crisis” in Indianapolis was racism and desegregation as many whites who could afford to do so moved out of the city, as did much business and capital, along with the ongoing effects of local, long-term racist policies and practices.

 In the Education Next (EN) article, there is not a single reference to race, desegregation, and racism.  Indeed, these words are never used (except as labels in one chart) even though the history of Indianapolis schooling cannot be accurately and fairly storied without these. In addition, there is no mention of the ongoing racism in law enforcement and imprisonment, housing, education, medicine, employment, banking, and the media, which exists in all cities and is well documented in social science research. These exclusions are a loud absence that is unquestionably remarkable and certainly a mark of weak and/or distorted scholarship.  Why would anyone who wanted to tell an honest “Hoosier” education story leave these out?  At a minimum, it certainly makes one wonder about the real nature and agenda of this EN story.

  1. No mention of the pro-charter neoliberal movement that has “Mind Trust” and “Stand for Children” like organizations in every major city and several smaller ones in the U.S.

 The Mind Trust and Stand for Children in Indianapolis like to keep their “story” local so those who work for them and the Indianapolis public remain ignorant about their true nature.  The Mind Trust and Stand for Children never discuss that they are part of a national neoliberal movement largely funded by conservative and right-wing individuals, organizations, and corporations.  They never discuss the wider agenda of this movement, which includes low taxes for the wealthy, decreased funding for social supports, the privatization of and profiteering off of public services (like public education), efforts to decrease the voting power of people of color, the end of unions (esp. teachers unions) and the benefits unions have developed, among other ways that decrease the quality of life for everyone but the 1% and those who serve them.  Also, Mind Trust and Stand for Children never discuss the strongly anti-democratic nature of the neoliberal movement.  To begin to educate yourself on this national movement, read these highly respected books, in this order, MacLean’s Democracy in Chains, Mayer’s Dark Money, and Lipman’s The New Political Economy of Urban Education.

  1. No mention of the key role of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) in the Mind Trust/Stand for Children story.

 ALEC is a conservative-rightwing organization that creates model state-level neoliberal legislation to assist in institutionalizing the state-level neoliberal agenda discussed above in #2.  ALEC considers Indiana to be one of its favorite states, as Indiana Republicans and some Democrats have implemented so much ALEC developed legislation.  The result has been that Indiana consistently ranks high in business-friendly policies and effects and among the lowest in quality of life policies and effects.  Lengthy discussions and critiques of ALEC and its agenda are widely available, but there is no doubt ALEC is pushing a radical agenda that would not be supported if voted on by the general public.

  1. No mention of the “dark money” funding of Mind Trust/Stand for Children supported school board members.

 Since the 2012 board election in Indianapolis, the Mind Trust and Stand for Children have covertly used a Stand for Children 501c4 headquartered in Oregon to funnel national money into the Indianapolis school board race.  Before this, any everyday citizen who could put together funding of $3-5,000 to win election to the school board.  Starting in 2012, we know that the Mind Trust and Stand for Children started providing around $65,000 to each of their chosen candidates with all of them winning as no one was expecting or prepared for this infusion of such large amounts.  In the next election, 2014, they did the same and took majority control of the board, even though one of their chosen candidates, Gayle Cosby, turned against them once she realized what their real agenda was.  We call this “dark money” because a 501c4 does not have to report where the funds came from or how they were spent and not one of their candidates have publicly admitted this support.  In fact, it took the IPS Community Coalition shouting loudly about this for some time before the local news media paid any attention and still do not sufficiently attend to this, especially since in the last election, our best guess is that they spent over $500,000 on a district wide seat (more on this below).  Recently, the head of Stand for Children, who is widely praised in the EN article, said on social media that the Indianapolis Stand for Children has no relationship to the 501c4 in Oregon, leaving us puzzled as to how the Oregon folks know whom to support.

  1. Even though the “Innovation” schools (stealth charters inside the district) are widely praised, there is no discussion of constant reports to the IPS Community Coalition that the district leadership uses deception, misrepresentations (to put it politely), and threats to stop resistance and garner parent and teacher support for converting a traditional school to an “innovation” school.

Either lots of teachers and parents are lying to the IPS Community Coalition, or the districts is using strong arm tactics to institute “innovation” schools.  Indeed, many teachers report to us that they feel afraid of the district leadership, given the district’s rough shod ways of getting what the district wants.  Also, there is no mention of the fact that for their first three years, the “innovation” schools are under easier state accountability rules.  Thus, the Mind Trust and Stand for Children often brag that the “innovation” schools are doing “better” even though traditional schools, which are under the full accountability rules, are actually doing better.  Might we call this dissembling?

  1. No mention of the utter failure to successfully educate Black children, who are the majority of IPS students, and no mention of the use of home schooling and high discipline rates to push out Black children.

 Despite that we know that testing experts say we cannot use state accountability exams in the way we do, it is a harsh fact that less than 6% of Black 10th graders recently passed both the state’s language arts exam and the math exam.  If any business (the favorite neoliberal model) had this terrible outcome, that business would be shut down or all the leadership fired.  This is totally appalling—and never mentioned.  In addition, an intrepid local Chalkbeat reporter found compelling evidence that some schools have been counseling the parents of primarily Black students to choose to home school instead of facing a discipline incident result, a move that takes this student off the school’s roles and improves the school’s standing.  That this has the high potential to negatively impact the entire life of these Black students does not seem important to the decision makers, even though local Black activists, like Diane Daniels, have been pointing this out for years.  Furthermore, other schools, sometime called “no excuses” schools, use really high levels of discipline to push out primarily Black students that they see as potentially hurting their schools’ state grade, even though local education activists, like John Harris Loflin, have been making this point for years.  That all of this is totally disastrous for Black students, their families, their communities, and all of Indianapolis does not seem important enough to mention in the EN story.

  1. Substantial problems with the CREDO and Indiana University (IU) research cited in the EN article and not addressed.

 There is no mention of the deep critique of the CREDO report and its methodology, even though the University of Colorado’s National Education Policy Center (neps.colorado.edu) has published more than one critique of the CREDO methodology and their reports.  Also, no mention that the CREDO reports are done by a center that receives large pro-charter funding.  Furthermore, the IU research has been cited locally and nationally but never publicly released, as far as I have been able to determine.  I was able to get a copy of it, but since others have ownership, I cannot release it.  I did a thorough, indepth critique of it, showing it to be flawed in multiple ways but cannot publish since the research continues not to be public.  I mentioned that publicizing but not publishing results was against social science practice and ethics. I even asked that it be released, but they have stopped communicating with me even though I am part of the same university system.

  1. Nothing on the persistent incompetency of the Ferebee administration. (Ferebee left last year to go to Washington, DC. Fight hard, everyday DC folks!)

 The examples of incompetency are many and large.  First, closing of high schools is almost always a fraught endeavor.  Nonetheless, there are good superintendents around the country who have figured out how to have authentic, transparent conversations with their communities and arrive at collaborative decisions.  I have met and talked to some of these folks.  It is never easy, and some community people are not happy in the end, but overall the community can feel it was done fairly and transparently.  That was not the case in Indianapolis.  Second, without consulting even with their friends and natural allies, like the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors, Ferebee went public with little time left before the vote with a nearly one billion-dollar bond proposal.  Even their friends and allies said, “NO!”  After an inappropriate Chamber study of cost cutting for the district, the district cut to around a quarter of the original amount to get Chamber and other elite support.  In addition, good superintendents know that it takes one to one and a half years of hard work to prepare for a successful bond election, and even that is no guarantee.  Ferebee seemed not to know this.  He did though get his quarter million because he committed most of it to raising teacher salaries, which even his critics supported.  Third, the district’s public budget document was opaque and confusing, even after having been critiqued by a non-political national organization that examines such documents nationwide.  After two years of pushing, we got some improvements.  Fourth, busing has consistently been a mess, which they now think they are solving by privatizing it. Fifth, teachers districtwide have become very afraid of raising any issues because they believe they will be fired.  Sixth, even though there is a large amount of research nationally as to what it takes to create successful urban schools for all children, regardless of race and ethnicity, family income, sexuality, disability status, and immigration status (some of which I have published), the Ferebee administration did not seem to know any of this.  Instead, initiating “innovation” schools and supporting charter schools that replaced district schools seemed to be his only choices.

  1. Chaos is the nature of the educational landscape as charters open and close and as neo-liberal-controlled IPS school board closes and opens schools and supports charters that open and close.

Since charters became legal in Indiana, 2001, 44% of charters have closed or been converted to a different school.  If we just count charters that closed, it is 40%.  This creates a very chaotic k12 educational landscape for students and their families.  After a family picks a charter, the odds are nearly half that the charter will close sooner or later.  Not surprisingly, many Indianapolis parents, especially low-income Black parents, are having to regularly move to a different school within their children’s elementary years.  What kind of a school system has nearly half of its schools closing over the last 20 years?  It is almost like the schools are more like hamburger joints than dependable public educational spaces.

  1. Choice does not really exist working class and low-income families

 Choice is a deceptive charade in Indianapolis public education, despite the school lottery, which includes both traditional and charters, run by “Enroll Indy” and originally funded by the Mind Trust. If you are a low income family of color, your real “choice” is to attend one among several low scoring schools dominated by the children of other low income families of color or “no excuses” schools that have very high discipline rates so that they can readily remove any student who will not help their state assessment grade.  The so-called “good” schools are overwhelmingly the ones with majority or near majority white students from educated, upper middle-class families.  These schools were created and are still being created to serve white families so they will move to Indianapolis or move their children to Indianapolis school district.  Though this is certainly a form of racism, some white school board members have publicly admitted this and/or recommended to their white friends to not send their children to the “diverse” schools.  However, these “good” schools are not readily accessible to the low-income families of color or even middle-class families of color.  This is not to say that there are not any “improving” schools or moderately successful schools serving low income families, but there are only a few.  Enroll Indy claims to be the district’s response to this racial segregation even though racial segregation in the district is increasing (nationwide research indicates that an increase in charters leads to an increase in racial segregation).  Importantly, the public cannot get access to Enroll Indy’s algorithm or their data set as they claim to be a private company, though their office is in the district administration’s building. Thus, they are able to conceal their process and their outcomes from the public

The neoliberal, so-called education “reform” movement is weaker than they seem despite their millions of dollars and their PR machine. 

The IPS Community Coalition is a multi-race, multi-class citywide coalition of everyday Indianapolis folks and local organizations (see us on Facebook) who started a little over three years ago.  We began with less than eight people sitting in a room together, and now we have over 250 members.  We are very active on Facebook and sometimes have over 6,000 eyes on our posts.  We have no money, and many of our members have little. We do support teachers’ unions and work with the local teachers’ union.  In the 2018 school board election, we defeated two of the Mind Trust and Stand for Children incumbents.  The only race they won was due to the candidate being a non-incumbent.  In our best understanding, they spent over a half million dollars on their districtwide candidate, Mary Ann Sullivan, while the person we supported, Susan Collins, defeated their candidate on less than $10,000.  Because of their losses in the last election, now they are bringing back some of the most well-known local founders of their so-called education “reform” movement, and they are trying to fake the community engagement that we authentically do.  They do have millions of dollars, many fulltime and part-time employees, and a large PR machine that falsely uses civil rights language, but they can be defeated.

Study what neoliberalism is doing in education and other public areas of your community. 

 An activated people can defeat money and power.

Dr. Jim Scheurich, Urban Education Studies Doctoral Program

Indiana University – Indianapolis (IUPUI) Professor

President, IPS Community Coalition

(This was previously published on Diane Ravitch’s blog, but points #9 and #10 have been added. )

$$$ and Agendas — Truth For America about Teach For America

Where does TFA’s $$$ come from? Truth For America is a podcast about Teach For America (TFA) that provides voice to educators, parents, students, and other key stakeholders. Truth For America is co-hosted by Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig and Dr. T. Jameson Brewer.

They are joined in episode 13 by Reverend Kyle Boyer, a Philadelphia teacher and former TFA corps member. The conversation in this episode reviews TFA’s financial resources. The podcast also discusses the relationship between TFA’s funding and the agendas of billionaires, foundations, and charters.

Truth For America is sponsored by the Network for Public Education Action.

You can check out new episodes hot off the press and much much more by following my YouTube channel. You can also listen and download the Truth For America program from iTunes while you are on the road here.

For all of Cloaking Inequity’s posts on Teach For America click here.

Please Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below and/or reblog to share this discussion with others.

Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button on the home page.

Twitter: @ProfessorJVH

Click here for Vitae.

Copyright permission from REM for use of song “World Leader Pretend” in Truth For America podcast worldwide: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21886773/Cloaking%20Inequity/REM%20World%20Leader%20Pretend%20Permission.pdf

Parent Trigger Testimony: A One-way Street to Private Control #SB14

Parent Trigger is a one-way street to non-democratic, private control of our public schools.

During the last round of Parent Trigger law attempts, I wrote about it in the posts Parent trigger laws: Wolves in sheep’s clothing and astroturfing and The Teat: Where does parent trigger movement get their $?

I flew to Texas Tuesday to testify at the Texas House of Representatives Public Education Committee against SB14— the latest Parent Trigger bill in Texas. I don’t recommend 5 a.m. flights two days in a row. I left for Texas on at 5 a.m. and returned to California the next day at 5 a.m. I still feel punch drunk.

I have included a YouTube video of the ~8 minute testimony below. The video also includes 4 questions (Reps Farney, Allen and Gonzales) from members of the House Public Education Committee after I completed my testimony. Here is a transcript:

My name is Julian Vasquez Heilig. I am a Professor of Education Policy and Leadership Studies at California State University Sacramento. Prior to being appointed as Professor at Cal State, I was on faculty in the College of Education at the University of Texas at Austin for 8 years.

I will publish my testimony on my education policy blog Cloaking Inequity.

I am testifying against SB14. I do not represent my institution on this bill.

My research studies have focused on a variety of issues including community-based reform and also market-based reforms.

The current research on parent trigger suggests that we should have major concerns about SB 14

SB14 is parent empowerment without the empowerment. Parental involvement without the involvement.

Why? Students and parents rights are actually more limited. Once the petition goes forward, the rights that are currently guaranteed to parents, students and teachers under the democratically defined education code are squelched. Under private control, parents and students no longer have guarantees on class size limits, disciplinary decisions, or qualified teachers among others.

As the Houston preacher just said, “parents deserve to have a say.”

Furthermore, as my real estate agent recently told me “Location!, Location!, Location!” I understand why there is great interest in parent trigger. Schools are sitting on very valuable parcels of land in Austin, in Houston, in Dallas.

It would be a coup for those shopping for real estate and facilities if just a few parents from any particular year are given the reins to easily transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in public assets. Let’s do some quick math.

Originally the SB14 Parent Trigger bill would have impacted more than 200 schools. Based on changes to the bill in the Senate, estimates that I have heard are that this would probably now impact 60 schools per year. Let’s estimate those schools are worth $3-5 million each in terms of property and buildings.

A few thousand parents could move $300 million in property resources out of the public space! Thus, Parent Trigger as written in SB14 is a one-way easy street.

My understanding from attorneys that I have talked to today is that it’s a grey area whether Texas could get the buildings back. Specifically, related issues have been litigated in Ohio and elsewhere.

Parent Revolution likes to talk about California. Turns out Californians don’t like the idea of giving away their schools for free. Parent Trigger has been boondoggle in terms of implementation and student achievement in California. Californians have realized parents trigger sounds good in theory, but in practice has been a failure. It’s a California export best left on the shelf.

Furthermore, the bill is flawed, as parents should have the option to cancel the contract and return to public management if they so choose. We know from the research literature that more than 80% of charters perform no better than traditional public schools.

Parent Trigger shouldn’t be a one-way street. Families should also be able to make the choice to leave private control and return to public control if they are underwhelmed by the undemocratic, non-local, control of their school.

I responded to a few questions from the Public Education Committee members after the testimony. In my response to the question from Rep. Allen, I mentioned a poll of voters and parents conducted by In the Public Interest. See a quick breakdown of the In the Public Interest survey of voters in the post School (False) Choice Sunday. (I promise it’s worth the click)

I did forget to mention in my testimony that one of the items prioritized by parents is more funding for schools at #3. You see the full parent choice poll at In the Public Interest. 

Screen Shot 2015-03-15 at 1.19.10 PM

I also mentioned that California is planning to spend $3,000 more per pupil in the fall from their billions in surplus. That should take the Golden State from 50th to about the national average.

In conclusion, currently Parent Trigger as formulated in SB14 and elsewhere is a bad idea for families and kids. It is a one-way street to private control. As I mentioned in my testimony, the recourse of parents is more limited under private control than democratic control.

I do have a new idea for parent trigger that would empower parents and communities. Stay tuned.

Please Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below and/or reblog to share this discussion with others.

Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button in the upper left hand corner of this page.

Twitter: @ProfessorJVH

Click here for Vitae.

For all of Cloaking Inequity’s posts on Parent Trigger go here.

For all of Cloaking Inequity’s posts on charters go here.

Screen Shot 2015-05-20 at 3.51.02 PM

You be the Judge: Are the @DFER_News Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing?

You be the judge. This post will discuss the highlights— or perhaps lowlights— of the Democrats For Education Reform (DFERs), a very powerful Wall Street funded organization who some say are seeking to profit from public education. The Seattle Education blog argued,

Democrats for Education Reform is a political action committee supported largely by hedge fund managers favoring charter schools, merit-pay tied to test scores, high-stakes testing, school choice (including vouchers and tuition tax credits in some cases), mayoral control, and alternative teacher preparation programs.

Jeff Bryant reported on the framing that the DFERs prefer,

In an interview featured on the website of a conservative D.C.-based think tank, [Marc Porter Magee] has stated his intentions of “breaking up the old ways of thinking in the Democratic Party … by asking: How could we solve conservative problems with liberal means, and liberal problems with conservative means?”

On their website the DFERs tell us that,

  • We support policies which stimulate the creation of new, accountable public schools and which simultaneously close down failing schools
  • We support mechanisms that allow parents to select excellent schools for their children, and where education dollars follow each child to their school.
  • We support governance structures which hold leaders responsible, while giving them the tools to effectuate change. We believe in empowering mayors to lead urban school districts, so that they can be held accountable by the electorate.
  • We support policies that allow school principals and their school communities to select their teams of educators, holding them accountable for student performance but allowing them flexibility to exercise sound, professional judgment.
  • We support clearly-articulated national standards and expectations for core subject areas, while allowing states and local districts to determine how best to make sure that all students are reaching those standards.

Fairly innocuous— none of that sounds controversial on its face.  But are they actually wolves in sheep’s clothing?

iyl5q

So who are the DFERs? You be the judge.

In this post I will run through a recent timeline of events and coverage of the DFERs.

2007: The Daily Kos reported,

The loudest voices were those of a new organization calling themselves Democrats for Education reform (DFER), led by young extremely wealthy hedge fund operators from New York City. In the May 31, 2007 issue of New York Sun there was a report about one of the first victories of DFER: “A money manager recently sent an e-mail to some partners, congratulating them on an investment of $1 million that yielded an estimated $400 million. The reasoning was that $1 million spent on trying to lift a cap on the number of charter schools in New York State yielded a change in the law that will bring $400 million a year in funding to new charter schools. The money managers who were among the main investors in this law — three Harvard MBAs and a Wharton graduate named Whitney Tilson, Ravenel Boykin Curry IV, Charles Ledley, and John Petry — are moving education-oriented volunteerism beyond championing a single school.  “They want to shift the political debate by getting the Democratic Party to back innovations such as merit pay for teachers, a longer school day, and charter schools. …  The group — actually two separate political action committees — has raised money for senators Obama, Clinton, and Lieberman; Governor Spitzer; Rep. George Miller; state senators Malcolm Smith and Antoine Thompson; assemblymen Sam Hoyt, Hakeem Jeffries, and Jonathan Bing, and City Council Member Vito Lopez. They count the charter cap lift, signed by Mr. Spitzer in April, as their first major victory.

2008:We have the DFERs to thank for Arne Duncan? As report by Mike Simpson at Big Education Ape:

Yet, by November Alexander Russo of the Huffington Post was reporting “The possibility of Darling-Hammond being named Secretary has emerged as an especially worrisome possibility among a small but vocal group of younger, reform-minded advocates who supported Obama because he seemed reform-minded on education issues like charter schools, performance pay, and accountability. These reformists seem to perceive Darling-Hammond as a touchy-feely anti-accountability figure who will destroy any chances that Obama will follow through on any of these initiatives.

2010: The UFT argued

…(DFERs are) like other public school bashers, except they call themselves Democrats. Democrats for Education Reform claims that it “leads efforts to frame the fight that is playing out within the Democratic Party on education issues.” It tries to accomplish that by pushing aside educators as spokespeople or even as informed practitioners. The organization advocates for nonunion charter schools, vouchers, merit pay, test-based teacher evaluations, curbs on tenure and removing educators from almost any role in shaping curriculum or determining working conditions.

In just three years, DFER directed more than $17 million into political and grassroots advocacy for its version of education reform and for what Joe Williams, the group’s former executive director and Daily News education reporter, credits as “creating momentum which has the potential to dominate education policymaking for years to come.

Also in 2010, Andrew J. Rotherham, DFER founder, proffered that Congressman Boehner would be “good” for education in his Time Magazine article Will John Boehner Be Good for Education? Prophet points deducted.

2011: The Nation argued that DFER was increasingly anti-educator and more focused on privatizing education: “…DFER’s endgame has little to do with learning and everything to do with marginalizing public-sector unionized workers and bringing down the cost of taxes for social programs and… creating new business and investment opportunities in areas that are still publicly run…”

2012: The DFERs were starting to pour money into school board races. Diane Ravitch’s comments ran in the Answer Sheet:

…This account (of corporate reformers) would not be complete if I didn’t mention the Wall Street hedge-fund managers who are active in school “reform.” Their organization is called Democrats for Education Reform, and it is the go-to place for candidates who hope to tap into Wall Street campaign funds. DFER spends freely in state and local races to elect candidates who support charter schools and evaluation of teachers by student test scores (although, ironically, many charters are exempt from state requirements to evaluate teachers by student test scores). A recent article lists the hedge-fund managers who sit on charter boards in New York City, and it is indeed astonishing that so many powerful and very rich men have decided that they know how to fix public education. This is the background that one needs to understand the recent school board race in Denver and the Louisiana state board election. What does all this outpouring of interest by the wealthiest people in the United States mean? …

After watching several years of DFERs pushing various privatization and profit schemes in the name of education reform and Civil Rights, the real Democrats had apparently had enough. The Los Angeles County Democratic Party issued a cease and desist Letter to DFER over using the word “Democrats”

Tell your friends in the 46th AD that “Democrats for Education Reform” does not speak for the Democratic Party. DPSFV stands with LACDP in demanding that DFER cease and desist using the Democratic name to confuse voters in California elections.

!0_MORGUE_2008_MoneyStack001PSP

2013: The DFERs pumped $1.6 million into Students for Education Reform (SFER) for college campuses.

An article by George Joseph in The Nation entitled Astroturf Activism: Who is Behind Students for Education Reform? found:

SFER, a student network that has exploded on more than 100 college campuses across the country since it was started by two students at Princeton in 2009, is an “education reform” front for a lobbying firm, exploiting college idealism for corporate profit. The group’s website declares: “We believe student voices matter. For too long, policymakers have not heard the voice of the stakeholders affected by education policy: students themselves.” But the pitch should replace stakeholders with stockholders, because the dollars behind the “grassroots” movement say more than the students themselves.

SFER has received $1.6 million from Education Reform Now, whose PAC, Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), shelled out $1 million to attack the Chicago Teachers Union. DFER worked with the Koch brothers and ALEC to push Proposition 32, which if passed, would have blocked labor unions from using automatic payroll deductions for political purposes. Though SFER claims neutral territory, its motives are laid bare by its rallying around the funding of charter schools, the issue of limiting tenure, and its strict focus on testing. The testing corporations and charter school CEOs might agree with hedge funder and DFER founder Whitney Tilson’s explanation for his interest in education: “Hedge funds are always looking for ways to turn a small amount of capital into a large amount of capital.”

I gave a talk on the problems with testing and accountability to the UT-Austin chapters of SFER in 2013. At the time, I had no idea what the background of the organization was.

2014:  The motives of the DFERs had become readily apparent and elements within the Democratic Party began to take notice of the organization’s backers and their profit desires. The Washington Post reported that

There has been growing pushback against corporate reform from elements in the Democratic Party. Donna Brazile, a longtime strategist, this month announced that she will  co-chair a newly formed organization called Democrats for Public Education and she told delegates at the American Federation of Teachers’ national convention that “the very premise of market-driven education reform” is wrong. The new organization is apparently a counter to the Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), which has for years supported Obama’s reform agenda and supported the spread of public charter schools…

2015: Diane Ravitch put former state Sen. Gloria Romero and “parent trigger” bill sponsor on blast due to her role asthe director of California DFER. She wrote about Romero’s Parent Trigger (See also the post The Teat: Where does parent trigger movement get their $?)

There is something fundamentally undemocratic about letting this year’s (or last year’s) parents to privatize a community institution, built and paid for by the entire community.

Screen Shot 2015-03-17 at 11.00.12 AM
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:15

So from this brief compendium/timeline… who do you think the DFERs are?

Are they as Muncie Voice’s Todd Smekens noted,

About setting up a new corporate structure to extract taxpayer dollars in our communities and sending the proceeds to Wall Street’s hedge fund managers who are  salivating over the potential of steady streams of income tied to each student aka “commodity to be traded”.

or are they reformers that,

Believe that reforming broken public school systems cannot be accomplished by tinkering at the margins, but rather through bold and revolutionary leadership.

and,

Fighting on behalf of our nation’s most vulnerable individuals is what our party is supposed to stand for.

You be the Judge. Please vote below.

Please Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below and/or reblog to share this discussion with others.

Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button in the upper left hand corner of this page.

Twitter: @ProfessorJVH

Click here for Vitae.

Interested in joining us in the sunny capitol of California and obtaining your Doctorate in Educational Leadership from California State University Sacramento? Apply by April 1. Go here.

Frank Convo with KIPP’s Mike Feinberg: Do you call BS?

I had a coffee conversation with Mike Feinberg yesterday. About two weeks ago Mike Feinberg contacted me via email about one of my posts on Cloaking Inequity. He related that he wanted to clarify the conversation about KIPP’s funding. I agreed to meet with him at the Blanton Museum Café at UT-Austin for a coffee conversation.

Sidenote: I am not the traditional media, I am a tenured Associate Professor moonlighting as a blogger. This means that I semi-daily provide my subjective reflections of current education and public policy issues. For some reason, when I am out and about at conferences, community meetings, the Texas Legislature— people now identify me as “the blogger.”

th

So who is Mike Feinberg? Wikipedia:

Mike Feinberg is the Co-Founder of the KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) Foundation and the Superintendent of KIPP Houston, which includes 125 public charter schools in twenty states: seventy middle schools, thirty seven primary schools, and eighteen high schools. More than 87% of the KIPP students come from low-income families. To date, more than 90% of the KIPPsters graduated high school and more than 80% have gone to college. Feinberg graduated from the University of Pennsylvania and later joined Teach For America where he taught fifth grade for three years.

In 1994, he co-founded KIPP with Dave Levin and established KIPP Academy Houston a year later. In 2000, Mike Feinberg, Dave Levin, and Doris and Don Fisher co-founded the KIPP Foundation to help train school leaders to expand KIPP by opening more KIPP schools. Today, KIPP is a network of 125 high-performing public schools around the nation serving more than 41,000 students.

See CI’s full set of posts on KIPP here.

Some have been disappointed with recent interviews of Michelle Rhee in the news media. I didn’t want to toss out softball questions to Feinberg. I sought to ask informed and probing questions based on research, data, and the common critical discourse surrounding KIPP. I also asked my Twitter followers (@ProfessorJVH) to tweet questions to me for Feinberg. I will give Mike credit— he was a good sport and took on every question I asked. He rarely avoided a direct answer.

To be fair, I have done my best to render his answers accurately without excluding context. Noone wants to be “misquoted” as often happens often in the media (I will soon post a misquote from a media source that I support tracking). To make the conversation more interesting, I have provided a subjective reflection to most answers. I have also concluded the interview with a BS poll. The poll is a measure to represent reader beliefs about the level of BS in Feinburg’s answers— he said he has “thick skin”. 🙂

Without further ado, my coffee conversation with Mike Feinburg:

Do you prefer Downton Abbey or Shades of Gray?

I love both!

Reflection: Okay, I didn’t really ask this question.

How do you keep what I call the efficiency reformers happy (those that are mainly focused on spending less and getting more) relative to social justice reformers (those who care less about spending and more about equity)?

The worst place to be in a fight is in the middle. In all these debates people go to the poles. It has to be about balance. Are we spending enough today in public education? I would argue no. Is money by itself going to fix this? Should we just throw money at the problem? It is not all an efficiency thing. You can’t keep squeezing schools to get great results. Everything needs to be in balance.

Reflection: See my thoughts on “reformers” here. I can imagine the challenge that KIPP has rustling efficiency reformers. They have to make the argument to them that they are getting more “results” for less. More on KIPP’s funding stream later in the interview.

What question do people ask you most about the film Waiting for Superman?

What happened to Daisy? Please don’t let her be the one that doesn’t get in to make everyone cry. [She was one of the students who did not get into KIPP via the lottery in the film] Can we engage the family to figure out what we can do to help? She got into another highly regard charter school for middle. KIPP follows up with Daisy on a semi-annual basis.

Reflection: Did the fact that Daisy didn’t get into KIPP besmirch them? To the contrary, Waiting for Superman was trying to use tears to make the case that we need hundreds more KIPPs/charters because she didn’t get in.

So a UT-Austin faculty colleague and buddy of mine was a TFA teacher in Houston in the 1990s. He tells a tale of you carrying a TV out of a house. Is that a true story?

Yes. Abbey, one of the original KIPPsters, lived on the 3rd floor of an apartment in Guflton [South Houston]. I went to do a home visit. Mom said she agreed TV was a problem. Abbey was addicted to TV, like Mike from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. She would even watch snow on the screen. How about we create a system where we take away TV for a week. A trade system of doing homework in exchange for work. Abbey came to school the next day without homework. I went to her house and Abbey was watching TV.

I know what you are going to do, you are going to give me the TV. If you can’t prevent her from watching it, let’s get rid of the TV. Its either that or she won’t be in KIPP. Abbey let out a loud wail and stumbled down the stairs. Was it mean or brilliant? I put the TV in the classroom for the next three weeks and she put her homework on top of the TV at KIPP. Three weeks later all homework done, and I took the TV back. Abbey went on to a boarding school and then Texas A&M.

Reflection: Um, Feinberg don’t play. You want to go to my school, I am walking out the door with your tube TV. I bet it was heavy.

Can the state figure out who the KIPP kids are in the data from the new hallways approach in Spring Branch Texas?

No. Intentionally the state can’t tell in their data who the KIPP students are. There is a wing of the building that is KIPP. In an overly simplistic way, we are just another strategy to improve achievement in the building. We are more than just Read 180, it is a larger choice program in the building. If you walk left you are at Landrum, if you walk right you are in KIPP. [What makes the wing different?] KIPP student come 7:30 to 5. Come in the summer. They can do all the extra-curricular. KIPP is a vendor, and there is a $6,000 per pupil cost charged to the district. In the KIPP wing, they run the school day, and hire the teachers. KIPP does not pay for facilities, transportation, or food. We also don’t pay for Special Education diagnostic work or extra-curricular.

Reflection: Could KIPP get a sweeter “vendor” deal from Spring Branch? You pay us $6,000 to hire teachers, extended the school day, and the district does everything else? Wow.

Diane Ravitch once asked KIPP to take over an entire district. Do you want that to happen anytime soon?

We’re not crazy enough. We’re too smart. We differentiate between what we do for schools. We don’t turn around schools. We make good schools.

Reflection: ***This only applies under the KIPP name, he has a spinoff 501c3 called Philo that will handle this for KIPP. More later in the interview.

What about the critics that say KIPP does not serve Special Education students? Do you turn Special Education students away from KIPP?

[From the early days of KIPP] we now have a different situation with Special Education. Since starting with Pre-K, we had a whole bunch more Special Education kids. Two months later, we know why you child is running into walls, they are blind. At the middle school level we now have full spectrum autisms. Parents are looking for a specialized schools later in life so we didn’t used to see as many Special Education students.

When we had two middle schools, one parent whose child was blind who looked into whether KIPP would be a good spot. We were honest and said and certainly try to sign up and come. We don’t have any staff or any other blind students. The parent looked at Houston ISD and chose to go there. [After a pause, he said this last happened in 2001].

Reflection: For context, after my conversation about KIPP data and disagreement with Jonathan Alter on Melissa Harris-Perry, I received a letter from someone in Houston on KIPP and Special Education. See Another “Dirty Little Secret”?: KIPP, Charters, and Special Education

What about non-corporate community-based charters and Special Education students? 

It is very hard for a mom and pop charter with 300 kids to do that. It is fair to ask KIPP Houston to do all this. We don’t have a choice. Its open enrollment.

Reflection: Amy Williams, one of my doctoral students, has nearly completed her dissertation. It focuses on Special Education spending in charters of different types (Corporate, Community-Based and Intergovernmental). We will post a series on the findings about Special Education students and funding from this dissertation once she graduates.

Can you tell me about your proposed KIPP, IDEA and Harmony partnership in North Forest ISD?

KIPP is not going to do turnaround. Its not the same thing that we are really good at. Not clear we would be good at it.

We set up a c3 called Philo. It is a firewall between the charter and the private sector. Philo will try education innovations that go well beyond KIPP.

Philo will do turnaround work— using the principles and pillars of KIPP and training in change management. These are skills and training that KIPP does not do today.

We can turnaround all schools in North Forest with Philo. However, I am not going to overpromise because I want to deliver.

Reflection: The idea of a charter consortium taking over North Forest, an entire district, has been very prominent in Texas media and Legislature. Mike Feinberg’s smartly setup a 501c3 to do school turnaround and firewall the KIPP name. Philo would be an umbrella management organization that would partner with KIPP and Yes and other charters. Why is this approach necessary to protect the KIPP name? School turnaround is difficult work in Texas (and elsewhere). In fact, how many turnaround schools have you seen on TV? Exactly my point. We have a peer-reviewed study of the failed school turnaround efforts in Texas that will be released soon by the Urban Education journal. See CI’s posts on turnaround here.

Are the higher attrition rates from charters that you see in the Texas data and just a representation of market approach of charters— that is that students vote with their feet? For example, the recent article in the Washington Post about the Basis charters in DC? Is attrition that is a standard deviation or two more than local traditional districts ok?

It is not okay for charters to have high attrition. No one can be a worse critic than ourselves. Colleen [his wife] is the #2 critic of KIPP.

Promises to kids are sacred. I don’t give a flying fat rat if 100% of students are going to college if a huge chunk of kids leave. Otherwise we are fake phony and fraud. However, attrition can’t be answered just by the numbers.

Reflection: I have discussed KIPP’s (and charter) attrition extensively in Is choice a panacea? An analysis of black secondary student attrition from KIPP, other private charters and urban districts and Exiting: A sample of charter chains vs public district’s student attrition

Do you see KIPP raising more or less than the $400 million that they raised from private sources over the past ten years in the next ten years?

We fundraise an addition ten percent. Houston ISD principals get $3400 and KIPP get $6,000. I worry allot of philanthropy for charters. I don’t think that philanthropy is sustainable. We have been able to fund that 10% gap above and beyond.

Reflection: KIPP rolls in the dough. See The Teat: Be a little more honest KIPP Charter Schools

Edit 4.25.13 Feinburg commented via email:

HISD vs KIPP funding – we were talking about the allocations given to the schools to budget but they way its written here makes it look like that’s the revenue, not the expense side. We allocate more to schools even thoguh we start with less overall govt funding and slightly less even when we add in philanthropy for operating costs. Big chunk of the dollars we’ve raised goes to facilities, which is fine for apples to apples as long as you compare to the ISD bonds

How do you see the government funding of KIPP increasing?

I don’t see federal funding increasing. For all public education is going south. It was great to get $50 million from I3.

Reflection: See Top Ten List: Why “choice” demonstrates that money matters

What if a parent says they won’t sign the KIPP contract? Who typically says no?

Noone says no. You have to sign the enrollment form to be that in a KIPP school.

Reflection: You play by our rules, or you don’t play.

What are your thoughts about the state data that shows that on average KIPP intakes students with higher test scores? Backfills with higher test scores? Is it just by chance?

We don’t do that. There is very little attrition. Take a look at the Mathematica study.

Reflection: We discussed the Mathematica findings in our peer-reviewed publication in the Berkeley Review of Education here.

Has Mathematica ever given you a study you didn’t like?

It was insanely expensive. Funders paid for it. There were parts of the studies I didn’t like.

Reflection: I guess not.

Is there anything about Relay Graduate School of Education that you think they could do better?

Not plugged in to Relay. I am excited they are coming to Houston to set up shop.

Reflection: He is clearly a fan of Relay. He did mention a variety of aspects of the program he liked. I honestly don’t know much about Relay. This was a reader submitted question.

What’s the Kids in Prison Program moniker all about?

In the Bronx in the 1990s, KIPP was on the third floor. They then would move a block away. The neighborhood kids would make fun of the students in KIPP schools because they were there for so many hours.

Reflection: This question was tweeted to me from New York. If there was a question that I felt he was annoyed by, this was probably it.

What do you think about the infamous CREDO national charter study that showed that only 15% of charters are better than traditional school in their neighborhood?

Charter schools are all different. You can’t paint charters with a brush stroke. Some are going a great job and should reach more kids. Some should be shut down.

Reflection: I also discussed the CREDO study on MHP: MSNBC Education Nation 2012 Part II: Demanding accountability from charters

Should a CEO of a charter management organization make $400,000? The same as the president of the US?

No, but we have people that are doing a great job, we want to make sure they are getting paid well. We look at data across the state to make that decision.

Reflection: Take note IDEA charter management board.

Should charters be able to buy unused schools building for $1 and be able to sell them later for a profit?

Selling them is ridiculous. However, the fact is that the buildings don’t belong to the district. It’s the public money.

Reflection: So KIPP won’t sell the buildings, but they really want them.

Would KIPP come in from a parent trigger?

KIPP does not do turnaround. We would go in and start a brand new school. Because we want people to choose the school.

Reflection: So KIPP will come if the students and parents signup for the KIPP model. Philo is the management organization who it appears Feinberg would wants you to turn to in a parent trigger situation. BTW. His wife Colleen is a proponent of Texas HB300, which is a parent trigger bill.

Who would you hire first: A University of Texas at Austin UTeach teacher or a TFA corp member from the University of Texas at Austin?

In February, they are both at the bottom of the pile [because they are new teachers]. Now its May, both would get interview, we would determine who to hire based on their classroom teaching session. Lower quality education schools, such as TSU, are harder to employ.

Reflection: He didn’t want to say who he would hire. He hedged this answer in my opinion.

What about TFAers who only teach two years, go off to grad school, and then want to be educational policy advocates?

We make fun of you when you leave the room. You only did two years then went to Harvard for two years.

Reflection: Ouch. You rock on this one Feinberg.

Should TFA teachers stay in the classroom beyond two years?

To go from rookie suck will serve you well regardless of your future profession.

Reflection: Teach For American attrition approaches 80% in years 3-4. See Teach For America: A review of the evidence (The research that TFA loves to hate…)

In his concluding comments. He stated that SB 2 should pass the Texas Legislature because “charters are a mess.”

Edit 4.25.13 Feinberg commented via email

SB 2 – charters are a mess didn’t remember saying that – as we discussed one can’t paint one brush stroke across the whole group of charters

He also relayed that, “There is nothing inherent by a charter that makes it great.”

So you have made it this far. Rate Mike Feinberg’s answers in our frank conversation below on the BS meter.

Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below to share this discussion with others.

Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button in the upper left hand corner of this page.